Re: [lmi] xanadu/remove-ISOC99_SOURCE-def

[Greg Chicares]

On 5/23/22 14:31, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2022 22:58:53 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
[...]
> GC> I'd be glad to apply a patch that uses "NOLINT" wherever
> GC> it's needed, as long as it's needed only in a reasonable
> GC> number of cases, of course.
> 
>  This depends on the checks that we want to enable. If it's just
> bugprone-reserved-identifier, it's definitely not going to be a problem.
> But other potentially useful checks could require adding more exceptions. I
> don't know which checks are going to be useful, there are a lot of them

I tried looking at the list, but couldn't guess what most of them mean.
You're in a better position to decide what makes sense. Maybe we should
work with the most promising handful first, and then use the experience
gained thereby to decide what to do with the rest.

>  I'm still undecided about what would be best, but I guess it's better to
> err on the side of getting fewer false positives, even at the cost of
> missing some potentially helpful warnings too, isn't it?

It's hard to say without context. If there are one million false
positives, then we won't have time to look at them all. If ten frank
defects are revealed and there's one false positive, then it's
worthwhile to look into eleven items and fix the ten actual problems.