pfultz2 added a comment. > I don't have a script for it. I've used "bear" with at least some of those > projects because they use makefiles rather than cmake > (https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear). I'm not tied to those projects > specifically, either, so if you have a different corpus you'd prefer to use, > that's fine. The important bit is testing it across a considerable amount of > C code and C++ code to see whether this diagnostic is too chatty or not.
So I did a grep over these codebases(with `grep -E '\bsizeof\([^()"*]+\([^()]*\)'`). Most of them are macros which access elements(ie no function call) or are used in type traits. The only false positive I saw was here: https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb/blob/v2.3.x/external/re2_20140111/re2/prog.cc#L317 So I dont think it will be too chatty. > That won't catch many (most?) of the issues demonstrated by PVS-Studio; the > rule their check follows are to warn on side-effecting operations (which > Clang already does with -Wunevaluated-expression) and arithmetic expressions > in sizeof. It finds function calls as well. I tried on MIOpen and it caught the errors like I mentioned earlier here: https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/MIOpen/blob/master/src/convolution.cpp#L184 Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D44231 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
