[PATCH] D12759: [clang-tidy] Add misc-sizeof-container check to find sizeof() uses on stlcontainers.

[Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits]

It was about a hundred in a huge codebase. It's definitely manageable, but
the experiment has shown that this kind of a mistake is not likely to
happen.
On 16 Sep 2015 23:25, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron.ballman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
> > All found results were intended usages of sizeof on containers. 100%
> false
> > positive rate that is.
>
> Yes, but is that 4 results in 10MM LoC, or 4000 results in 40k LoC?
> ;-) I guess I just don't have a good feel for how large the codebase
> is, and how many times it resulted in matching sane code. If it's
> really low (like 4 out of 10MM LoC), I think the checker may possibly
> be useful (just not in that code base). If it's anything remotely
> high, then I would agree, let's ditch it and not look back.
>
> ~Aaron
>
> >
> > On 16 Sep 2015 21:23, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron.ballman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > An update: I didn't find a single bug with this check in a large
> >> > codebase.
> >> > Turns out that it's rather useless. I'm inclined to kill it.
> >>
> >> How bad is the false positive rate?
> >>
> >> ~Aaron
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alexander Kornienko
> >> > <alexfh at google.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I've also found a bunch of similar cases in our codebase, and I'm
> >> >> trying
> >> >> to figure out whether the pattern can be narrowed down to just
> >> >> dangerous
> >> >> cases. If we don't find a way to do so, we'll probably have to resort
> >> >> to "//
> >> >> NOLINT" to shut clang-tidy up.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 13 Sep 2015 10:52, "Kim Gräsman" <kim.grasman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Late to the party, but I wanted to ask: is there a way to indicate
> to
> >> >>> the checker that we really *did* mean sizeof()?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think I've stumbled over code in our code base that uses
> >> >>> sizeof(container) to report memory usage statistics and it seems
> >> >>> valid, so it'd be nice if this checker could be silenced on a
> >> >>> case-by-case basis.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> - Kim
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Alexander Kornienko via
> cfe-commits
> >> >>> <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >>> > Indeed. But this has been fixed before I could get to it.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits
> >> >>> > <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> aaron.ballman added a comment.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> This appears to have broken one of the bots:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/15065
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12759
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> >> cfe-commits mailing list
> >> >>> >> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> >> >>> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >> >>> > 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/cfe-commits/attachments/20150916/ef110c08/attachment-0001.html>