Re: [PATCH] D20689: [clang-tidy] Suspicious Call Argument checker

alexfh added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20689#443266, @varjujan wrote: > Yes, I did. The results from running the checker on LLVM are in the attached > file. Sadly, I could'nt find any real mistakes but as I wrote in the summary, > false positives can still indicate bad naming conve

Re: [PATCH] D20689: [clang-tidy] Suspicious Call Argument checker

varjujan added a comment. Yes, I did. The results from running the checker on LLVM are in the attached file. Sadly, I could'nt find any real mistakes but as I wrote in the summary, false positives can still indicate bad naming convention for some variables. F1991684: result.txt

Re: [PATCH] D20689: [clang-tidy] Suspicious Call Argument checker

alexfh added a comment. Thank you for the new check! Before starting with the review, I'd like to clarify one important thing. It's not immediately obvious that the pattern the check detects is actually a good indicator of a programming mistake. Did you try to run the check on a large enough c