lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883#1054326, @thakis wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883#1048751, @dblaikie wrote: > > > Historically Clang's policy on warnings was, I think, much more > > conservative than it seems to be today. There was a strong desire not to > > implement off-by-default warnings, and to have warnings with an > > exceptionally low false-positive rate - maybe the user-defined operator > > detection was either assumed to, or demonstrated to, have a sufficiently > > high false positive rate to not meet that high bar. > > > This is still the case. For a new warning, you should evaluate some large > open-source codebase and measure true positive and false positive rate and > post the numbers here. Just finished running it on chrome: (wow, that took a while!) $ cat /tmp/test.cpp struct S {}; void test (S a) { a = a; } $ /build/llvm-build-Clang-release/bin/clang++ -c /tmp/test.cpp -Wall /tmp/test.cpp:4:5: warning: explicitly assigning value of variable of type 'S' to itself [-Wself-assign] a = a; ~ ^ ~ 1 warning generated. $ ninja -C out/ClangStage2 chrome ninja: Entering directory `out/ClangStage2' [31309/31309] LINK ./chrome Config: F5937598: args.gn <https://reviews.llvm.org/F5937598> So unless the config ^ is wrong, there have been no occurrences, no false-positives. Down to one [trivial] prerequisite - https://reviews.llvm.org/D45082 - would be super nice if someone could review/accept it :) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
