aaron.ballman added a comment. In D63423#1550768 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423#1550768>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> >> Perhaps the author can run the check over a large corpus of code to see > >> whether fps come up in practice? (The presence of fps will suggest to not > >> warn in macros, but the absence of fps won't tell us too much.) > > Sorry, I have no time nor spare computers to check big codebases. As @jfb > said, let's start with a conservative approach and possibly improve it in the > future. I can live with that, but my concern is that we often don't do that "improve it in the future" bit and we already know about buggy cases in the wild where the diagnostic will not trigger. Given how often people use macros for simple, but wrong, constructs like my `POW` example, I think this reduces the utility of the check. What are the GCC folks planning to do with macros? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63423 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
