[cfe-dev] RFC redundant assignment in switch

[Philip Reames]

On 03/31/2014 02:56 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
> 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
At the moment, the class of errors reported by dead store has such a 
high noise rate, we're not interested in manually tagging them.  We 
completely ignore the entire category.

Philip