On 7/29/2011 1:30 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
2) if the tool has trouble analyzing the code, there's a not unreasonable chance a person also has trouble. The above case is a good one where depending on how close those two if's are in the code and how obvious it is that B is a super set of A, it's the kind of thing someone's going to have trouble with too.
In general I agree with this, which is why I've made some changes to the source code to 'fix' some of the non-bugs identified by clang. I felt the changes made the code more readable.
By and large though, this isn't the way I'd spend my time, unless you goal is to reduce test cases to feed into clang to improve it. The cost/benefit ratio just doesn't meet the bar.
So far, two real bugs have been identified. This makes it worth one pass through the clang results, but as you say, the rate of false positives is so high it is not worth continuing to use it.
