On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Nico Weber via Phabricator via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> thakis added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883#1048751, @dblaikie wrote: > > > Historically Clang's policy on warnings was, I think, much more > > conservative than it seems to be today. There was a strong desire not to > > implement off-by-default warnings, and to have warnings with an > > exceptionally low false-positive rate - maybe the user-defined operator > > detection was either assumed to, or demonstrated to, have a sufficiently > > high false positive rate to not meet that high bar. > > This is still the case. For a new warning, you should evaluate some large > open-source codebase and measure true positive and false positive rate and > post the numbers here. > (…and warnings that are useful but have a non-diminishing false positive rate should go into clang-tidy instead.)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
