martong added a comment. In D109836#3002811 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109836#3002811>, @steakhal wrote:
> LGTM. > Thanks for fixing this. Thanks for the review! > Should this checker remain in alpha in its current form? > WDYT? @all There is no clear explanation for this checker being alpha. TLDR; I think this could be moved out of alpha now. @NoQ ? The checker was accepted in this patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D13126 . Here, Artem vaguely explains he would "probably move out of alpha whenever it's tweaked to somehow make sure it finds enough real bugs among intentional integer truncations, which would most likely require some nontrivial heuristics". Daniel (the author) claims that he found roughly 10-15% false positives: "I have looked all warnings that I got. 1678 projects where scanned. In total I got 124 warnings. I classified 91 warnings as TP. 14 as FP. and then there were 19 that I failed to triage." Since then, the author created a patch that targets some of the FPs: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25596 With this patch, the bugreports are cleaner. Also, in our bugreport database, I could not found any obvious false positives for the checker. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109836/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109836 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
