aaron.ballman added a comment. In D20689#2457808 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689#2457808>, @whisperity wrote:
> Right, let's bump. Thank you for all of the detailed information on the performance of the check! I worked on a similar check in a recent past life and my intuition is that over a large corpus of code, this will still have quite a bit of false positives and false negatives. However, I think those can likely be handled by post-commit improvements like noticing abbreviations (`def` vs `define`) or synonyms (`number` vs `numeral`), being smarter about patterned names, etc. I think this check is worth moving forward with, but I'm not certain how @alexfh feels about it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D20689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
