<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Richard Trieu <<a href="mailto:rtrieu@google.com">rtrieu@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; 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-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; ">This warning caught around 5 bugs. Roughly twice that amount in false positives needed to be silenced.</span></blockquote></div><div><br></div>Thanks Richard.<div><br><div>IMO, that's a pretty dreadful signal-to-noise ratio. That's a 66% false positive rate. That's the kind of false positive rate I'd consider a warning being DefaultIgnore, not be on by default. Do the other false positives look like cases the warning logic could be improved to handle? Less than 10% false positive rate seems required to me for this warning to be on by default.</div></div></body></html>