[cfe-dev] -Wunique-enum; is it worth it?

[Ted Kremenek]

On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Richard Trieu <rtrieu at google.com> wrote:

> This warning caught around 5 bugs.  Roughly twice that amount in false positives needed to be silenced.


Thanks Richard.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20120912/0d19cfad/attachment.html>