courbet added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18649#389363, @alexfh wrote:
> Thank you for working on the new clang-tidy check! > > We usually recommend authors to run their checks on a large code base to > ensure it doesn't crash and doesn't generate obvious false positives. It > would be nice, if you could provide a quick summary of such a run (total > number of hits, number of what seems to be a false positive in a sample of > ~100). The tool generated 20k positives on our codebase. On a sample of 100, there are: - 8 instances of the same exact code structure that's just wrong: const string var = FLAGS_some_flag + "some_sufix"; - 8 false positives. - 84 possible issues. (interestingly 6 of these are from premature use of variations of "extern char* empty_string;" The false positives fall into 3 categories: 1. 3 variations of: extern int i; static const int* pi = &i; // diag // Then pi is dereferenced later, once i is intialized. Public example of this: https://github.com/python-git/python/blob/py3k/Objects/dictobject.c#L2027 2. 3 variations of: // .h class A { static const int i = 42; }; // .cc int A::i; // diag 3. 2 variations of: // .h class A { static int i; static int j; }; // .cc int A::i = 0; int A::j = i; // diag http://reviews.llvm.org/D18649 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
