aaron.ballman added a comment. In D141310#4054351 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310#4054351>, @dblaikie wrote:
> @adriandole do you plan to deploy this in a codebase? Have you tried it on a > codebase already? > > I'd worry this would just be too noisy, and there's probably enough benign > pointer comparisons that'll never hit the ICF false-equality situation (eg: > putting some callbacks in a map/set/something - where the callbacks all do > genuinely different things, so they'd never end up with accidental identical > functions/folding) that it wouldn't be feasible to use this in a real > codebase? Are your worries lessened by the fact that this is (by necessity of the way the toolchain is composed) be an off-by-default warning that users must opt into? My thinking is that this shouldn't be *too* chatty because it's specific to equality comparisons between (non-nullptr) function pointers, but I agree that having some confirmation about this finding true positives that aren't swamped by false positives would be beneficial. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141310 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
