In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528#182511, @danielmarjamaki wrote:
> > Did you encounter any cases when the code broke after applying fixes? > > > No I did not. The projects compiled fine after the fixes. > > > How many instances of the warning does the latest version of the check > > produce on the same set of projects where you saw 47k warnings initially? > > > I can't say exactly right now. It's a little less as far as I know. > > > I would also like to see an estimate of the false positive rate (from a > > random sample of 100 warnings). > > > I fixed 300 warnings with -fix and saw no compiler warnings. > > However I looked now at 100 random warnings and saw 5 fp (for type > definitions)! I can try to write a heuristic for some of those. So the incorrect fixes in these cases were applied, but the code still compiled? Can you give a couple of examples? ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MacroParenthesesCheck.cpp:68 @@ +67,3 @@ + } else if (Indent <= 0 && + (Tok.is(tok::plus) || Tok.is(tok::minus) || Tok.is(tok::star) || + Tok.is(tok::slash) || Tok.is(tok::percent) || ---------------- danielmarjamaki wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > This looks like a reason to move isOneOf from clang::format::FormatToken > > (tools/clang/lib/Format/FormatToken.h) to clang::Token. It would greatly > > simplify this and similar conditions. > Yes... I added a new patch today where this code was rewritten. I did not > move isOneOf.. do you still I should do it? The new code seems to use this pattern as well. It would be nice if you moved and used the isOneOf instead. http://reviews.llvm.org/D9528 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
