[PATCH] D44883: [Sema] Extend -Wself-assign and -Wself-assign-field to warn on overloaded self-assignment (classes)

[John McCall via llvm-commits]

If you have a concrete suggestion of how to suppress this warning for
user-defined operators just in unit tests, great. I don’t think 8
easily-suppressed warnings is an unacceptably large false-positive problem,
though. Most warnings have similar problems, and the standard cannot
possibly be “must never fire on code where the programmer is actually happy
with the behavior”.

John.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 17:12 Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:

> "False positive" means "warning fires but didn't find anything
> interesting", not "warning fires while being technically correct". So all
> these instances do count as false positives.
>
> clang tries super hard to make sure that every time a warning fires, it is
> useful for a dev to fix it. If you build with warnings enabled, that should
> be a rewarding experience. Often, this means dialing back a warning to not
> warn in cases where it would make sense in theory when in practice the
> warning doesn't find much compared to the amount of noise it generates.
> This is why for example clang's -Woverloaded-virtual is usable while gcc's
> isn't (or wasn't last I checked a while ago) – gcc fires always when it's
> technically correct to do so, clang only when it actually matters in
> practice.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via
> cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20180410/a9e3a999/attachment.html>