On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:41:53PM -0700, Richard Trieu via cfe-commits wrote:
> Currently, this warning is on by default. As you said, the results you
> found look intentional in many cases, so there is a high false positive
> rate. For on by default warnings, we expect a high true positive
Currently, this warning is on by default. As you said, the results you
found look intentional in many cases, so there is a high false positive
rate. For on by default warnings, we expect a high true positive rate and
intend for users to not disable the warning. From my analysis on a
separate
danielmarjamaki added a comment.
I updated the patch so it does not warn about 'A * B << C'. It's a simple fix.
I have not made careful measurements but I guess that the performance penalty
is acceptable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24861
___
danielmarjamaki removed rL LLVM as the repository for this revision.
danielmarjamaki updated this revision to Diff 72797.
danielmarjamaki added a comment.
Don't write warning for multiplication in LHS of <<. Often the execution order
is not important.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24861
Files:
joerg added a subscriber: joerg.
joerg added a comment.
I think the comment from Daniel shows the crux of the issue. A left shift is by
nature a multiplication operation, so I don't see why it should get the
warning. A right shift works like a division and order is quite significant for
that.
I'd still wonder if this meets the bar for false positives (generally we
try to only add warnings that would be enabled by default, even in new
codebases - where most of what they find in a newcodebase are latent bugs,
not noise (so the cleanup is at least fairly justified as being beneficial
in
bruno added a subscriber: bruno.
bruno added a comment.
Hi Daniel,
This is very nice.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24861#553606, @danielmarjamaki wrote:
> Compiling 2064 projects resulted in 904 warnings
>
> Here are the results:
>
danielmarjamaki added a comment.
Compiling 2064 projects resulted in 904 warnings
Here are the results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BykPmWrCOxt2N04tYl8zVHA3MXc/view?usp=sharing
The results looks acceptable imho. The code looks intentional in many cases so
I believe there are users that
Do you have some data on the true/false positive rate for this warning?
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:12 AM Daniel Marjamäki <
daniel.marjam...@evidente.se> wrote:
> danielmarjamaki created this revision.
> danielmarjamaki added reviewers: dblaikie, rtrieu.
> danielmarjamaki added a subscriber:
