[cfe-dev] RFC redundant assignment in switch

[Kyle Sluder]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014, at 02:26 PM, Philip Reames wrote:
> Speaking as someone who has tried to use the static analyser on a 
> largish code base in the recent past, I would *much* rather see a 
> separate checker.  We have literally hundreds of false positives from 
> dead stores and actively ignore them.  A "dead store due to fall-through 
> case" on the other hand is likely a bug and is thus very interesting.

I know there has been discussion about making it possible to ignore
specific analyzer warnings, which seems like a better way to address
your concern than to have overlapping checkers.

--Kyle Sluder