Mordante added a comment. In D68912#1723722 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68912#1723722>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D68912#1723691 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68912#1723691>, @xbolva00 wrote: > > > >> Does this analysis require CFG support > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292 also requires CFG support. > > > Yes, it does. > > > Generally, is CFG support ok for -Wall if the warning has few false > > positives? > > I think it also depends on the performance of the diagnostic. > > >>> I am wondering if the diagnostic was kept out of -Wall for a reason. > > > > Yes, it would be good to find why this was disabled (never enabled?). I don't know, @rtrieu originally added the warnings, maybe he can answer that question. >> @Mordante can you compile LLVM itself with this patch? I compiled LLVM and Clang and it adds 145 unique warnings. I wouldn't mind to fix those and the other subprojects, so I can test whether the tests have false positives. Am I correct to assume these patches all need to be reviewed? > I'd be curious to know how the timing changes between compilations as well; > does this regress performance considerably? I did a partial build of LLVM the timings are quite similar: Before: real 7m44.918s user 14m41.052s sys 0m16.560s After: real 7m52.934s user 14m39.968s sys 0m16.932s CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68912/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68912 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
