Szelethus added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49438#1184688, @george.karpenkov wrote:
> @Szelethus Hi, do you plan to finish this patch soon-ish? I would like to > evaluate it on a few codebases, but the pointer chasing is currently way too > fragile / generates too many FPs. What do you mean under fragile? It certainly needs some refactoring and clarification, but I haven't seen the current version of the checker crash due to pointer chasing. This might be a little nit-picking, but I don't think the finds are false positive. From what I've seen after looking through hundreds of reports, I am confident that pointer chasing is working as intended. I would however agree that some reports hold little value to the developer, as in some cases pointees are intentionally left uninitialized, so it's better to hide it behind a flag for now. https://reviews.llvm.org/D49438 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
