<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 4, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Anna Zaks wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">I think, the main difficulty is to find out if we can come up with a set of heuristics which would preserve the usefulness of the warning and produce very little false alarms (for example, based on Nico's findings).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Agreed. Without such heuristics, its not going to be an on-by-default warning in the static analyzer either, which means it will have even less usefulness.</div></body></html>