aaron.ballman added a comment. In D147844#4293743 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844#4293743>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D147844#4293693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844#4293693>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >>> I think some of the cases are ambiguous while others are not. >> >> Data would be good to have - if this assessment is true, we'd expect this to >> bear out in terms of bug finding, yeah? (that the cases you find to be >> ambiguous turn up as real bugs with some significant frequency in a >> codebase?) > > I disagree that there's a need for bugs to add this warning. Reading > ambiguous-but-correct code isn't going to be buggy, but it is going to cause > readability issues for any reviewers or maintainers. The number of changes to test cases convinces me that we definitely need data on whether it's worth it or not. This warning now looks chatty enough that it needs to be disabled by default, and that doesn't meet our usual bar. >> Readability improvements that don't cross the threshold to be the cause of a >> significant number of bugs are moreso the domain of clang-tidy, not clang >> warnings. Strong +1, this is starting to feel more like a style warning due to the chattiness. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
