Just a precision, I think there are way more issues after clang 19, since clang 20. I'm using clang 19 on my machine and I don't get any of the false positives that I get in the CI.
Anyway, it doesn't change the conclusion. > Hi, > >> Is anyone else annoyed by the number of (very clearly wrong) false positives >> that the bugprone-branch-clone lint check is giving on CI? > > Yes, I was close to disable it recently. > > I searched a little bit to better understand what was going on and my > conclusion is that there are several issues since clang 19 (missing > includes are one, but it doesn't behave well with some Qt type, like if > we replace a QVector with a std::vector, the issue suddenly disappear). > > So, I'm in favor of removing it. > > Regards, > Julien > >> Hi list, >> >> Is anyone else annoyed by the number of (very clearly wrong) false positives >> that the bugprone-branch-clone lint check is giving on CI? >> >> Is there ANY value in this particular check? Or should we just disable it? >> It seems completely broken to me[1]. >> >> Nyall >> >> [1] I searched upstream for bug reports and can't find anyone else having >> this issue. The closest I can find is possibly >> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67662 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer -- Julien Cabieces Senior Developer at Oslandia [email protected] _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
