lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883#1063003, @thakis wrote:
> This landing made our clang trunk bots do an evaluation of this warning :-P > It fired 8 times, all false positives, and all from unit tests testing that > operator= works for self-assignment. > (https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1000856 has the > exact details) It looks like the same issue exists in LLVM itself too, > https://reviews.llvm.org/D45082 Right, i guess i only built the chrome binary itself, not the tests, good to know... > Now tests often need warning suppressions for things like this, and this in > itself doesn't seem horrible. However, this change takes a warning that was > previously 100% noise-free in practice and makes it pretty noisy – without a > big benefit in practice. I get that it's beneficial in theory, but that's > true of many warnings. > > Based on how this warning does in practice, I think it might be better for > the static analyzer, which has a lower bar for false positives. Noisy in the sense that it correctly diagnoses a self-assignment where one **intended** to have self-assignment. And unsurprisingly, it happened in the unit-tests, as was expected ^ in previous comments. **So far** there are no truly false-positives noise (at least no reports of it). We could help workaround that the way i initially suggested, by keeping this new part of the diag under it's own sub-flag, and suggest to disable it for tests. But yes, that Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44883 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
