On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D4169#131597, @dblaikie wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D4169#68650, @dblaikie wrote: > > > > > You could probably be a bit narrower than POD types - probably just > > > types with trivial copy constructors. But for now "all POD types" > > > shouldn't have any false positives, only false negatives - so perhaps > > > leave it that way with a FIXME Describing a narrower check for small > > > types (small to be defined/discovered) with trivial copy construction. > > > > > > Have you addressed these suggestions? > > > > I don't recall where this was all left, exactly. > > > Currently, all POD types for copies are ignored. There is a comment to > only ignore types with trivial constructors and to figure out a proper size > for small in a future revision. > OK - do you have numbers (true/false positive rates, etc) for the warning as it stands in this review? > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D4169 > > EMAIL PREFERENCES > http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
