Prazek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33470#790484, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33470#789791, @Prazek wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33470#764846, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > Once you fix the typo in the check, can you run it over some large C++ > > > code bases to see if it finds any results? > > > > > > I tried it on LLVM code base (after fixing bug with the numeric_limits > > name) and it didn't find anything suspisious. > > Unfortunatelly I don't have enough time to try it on different codebases, > > but I am weiling to fix any bug with this check if it would happen in the > > future. > > The release 5.0 is near, so I would like to push it upstream. Does it > > sound good to you? > > > My concern is: does this find any actual issues in real world code? This > seems like such a highly specific check -- not many people use numeric_limits > in the first place, let alone on non-builtin types, so does it justify > running this check when someone batch-includes all of the misc checks? > > I don't think this check is going to trigger a ton of false positives. I am > wondering more the opposite: will this check ever trigger on anything other > than compiler test cases? The check is based on the real world scenario that my friend had at work, so at least I know about one such case :) It probably won't be a very popular check in terms of fiding anything, but it should find real bugs. The matcher is very easy so the check should be fast. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33470 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
