- User Since
- May 19 2018, 9:52 AM (65 w, 3 d)
Fri, Aug 9
... then I have a script that runs clang-tidy over all the compilation units in a compilation database
Can you share this script please? :)
My point regarding statistics is that the check needs to pull its own weight -- if it doesn't find many true positives, it's not of much value to a broad community, or if it has a lot of false positives, we may need to tweak the check before releasing it to the public, etc. So definitely do the implementation work, but part of that work should be testing it over large code bases and reporting back the results.
Okay. Do we have any infrastructure for doing such testing? Or I should do it manually: prepare some large codebases, run over them clang-tidy with the check and parse the result?
@aaron.ballman Sure. I agree with you that epsilon should be configurable. I think we can collect some statistics later. Now I am going to work on implementation and tests. Later, of course, will be good to run the check on some codebases. I will be happy to hear that we already have some infrastructure for doing stuff like this.
One thing I would be interested in knowing is how often the check behaves when run over some large, real-world code bases. Does it catch any true positives? Does it have false positives?
I have no such statistics for this check. But I have statistics for identical check from PVS-Studio - https://www.viva64.com/en/examples/v624/
Thu, Aug 8
The main reason why I've created this differential - asking to you about usefulness of this check for clang-tidy. I understand that there are a some TODO and formatting issues - it's ok for now.
Wed, Aug 7
May 8 2019
May 7 2019
Can anyone merge it? I have no commit access
May 2 2019
Jan 7 2019
Jan 5 2019
Can anyone help me with writing a checker for such code:
Jan 4 2019
@hokein Is there any policy about the question "Which changes can clang-tidy check suggest?" . Should clang-tidy check suggest only "safe" fixes and warn only in "safe" cases?
Jan 3 2019
Nov 4 2018
Fix using auto in case where it leads to worse readability
- Fix indentation in test file
- Return back capitalization for the checker description
Nov 3 2018
Sorry for necroposting - what is the status of the patch? @tvvikram
Nov 1 2018
Which other changes and/or approvals are required for merging into trunk?
Hmm, i thought Clang has some warning for this, but I was wrong... Did you think to implement this check as Clang warning?
Oct 29 2018
Fix typedef -> using
Add new test for enum bit field
Add the reference to CERT page
Oct 28 2018
- Changed std::transform to llvm::transform
- Described the check in .html file
- Fixed RUN command for the test file