Ok. I'm on vacation right now but I plan on removing it soon. Thank you for reporting this issue.
> On Dec 21, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> wrote: > > I found the issue, as we used to turn on all the checkers (except debug ones) > in clang-tidy. We have no special interest in this particular checker, so > it's fine if you remove it, since it's not fully functional anyway. > >> On 21 Dec 2013 01:21, "Ted Kremenek" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Alex, >> >> Are you okay with us removing this checker? It’s never been fully >> productized, and has many issues. For one, it can produce false positives >> because the analysis path engine is unsound, and can prune paths that are >> actually reachable. We also had lots of issues with path coverage, which >> made this checker rarely fire on a lot of code. I think it is worth >> investigating again one day, but right now its pretty much stale code. >> >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > IdempotentOperationsChecker has suffered from several known limitations >> > for a while, but the addition of interprocedural analysis has certainly >> > compounded the issues. I had thought about it at the time when we added >> > interprocedural analysis, but it never became a pressing action item. >> > >> > This checker has been in the alpha state for a couple years now. Making >> > it real is going to take a lot of work beyond just fixing these immediate >> > issues. I think we should just go and remove it entirely. If we want to >> > resuscitate it one day we can. >> > >> > On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Aha, of course. Unfortunately, this means that the IdempotentOperations >> >> checker is even more broken than we thought, because it tries to make >> >> claims about inlined functions. >> >> >> >> I like the assert, but I don't think perpetuating the brokenness is a >> >> good idea. With this fix, any blocks that were in an inlined function >> >> will not be considered reachable from a path through the caller, even >> >> though they might be. Worse, and independent of this issue, is the fact >> >> that within an inlined function we only see one path, and the checker >> >> might mistakenly take that to be the only possible path. >> >> >> >> If we just throw out inlined functions altogether, it might start making >> >> sense, but then you don't get very good coverage. >> >> >> >> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2427 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cfe-commits mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
