steakhal abandoned this revision. steakhal added a comment. I'm abandoning this change in favor of D134947 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134947>. I'll leave the patch summary and the discussion here for the history.
--- In D132236#3753238 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132236#3753238>, @NoQ wrote: >> For FPs I dont know how to automate this process. :/ > > Given that our initial hypothesis was that there should be zero new false > positives, it could probably work with a creduce predicate //"this code has a > warning after the patch but not before the patch"//. The initial hypothesis > is probably not entirely correct, given that even a slight change in coverage > could result in false positives, but I doubt that if you pick 4-5 examples, > all of them would reduce to a situation where it's just a change of coverage. > Especially given how common you say the problem appears to be. So I think > it's worth a try. D134941 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134941> addresses this comment. I'm also about to investigate other cases with differences - but no promises about that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132236/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132236 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
