On 2016.11.03 at 14:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:55:03PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2016.11.03 at 14:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:35:57PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > I don't have gathered detailed statistics. But for example a simple > > > > /* drop through */ in a package header file will of course cause many > > > > bogus warnings during the build on level 2. > > > > For the Linux kernel false positives decrease ~20% when switching from > > > > level 3 to 1. > > > > > > One would have to count only warnings with unique locus (i.e. sort -u them > > > after grepping them from logs). > > > But even with 20%, if one spends the energy to analyze the 80%, where > > > one actually has to analyze the code, just mechanically changing a couple > > > of > > > common comment kinds into more standardized one isn't going to be > > > significant. > > > > I should have written: For the Linux kernel the number of warnings > > dropped by 20% (going from level 3 to 1) and all of them turned out to > > be false positives. And yes, I have used "sort -u". > > I'm not sure if I would call 20% insignificant. > > But we are talking about 2 vs. 1 now, so that is likely smaller than 20%. > Plus what those comments in that 2 vs. 1 set are where the warnings differ, > if they are related to fall through or not.
It is still a 12% reduction (2 vs. 1). I've posted a list of them in the older thread. -- Markus
