mirror of
https://github.com/golang/go
synced 2024-11-13 19:50:21 -07:00
016569f204
This is an inconsequential consequence of updating math/big to use math/bits. Better would be to teach the vet shift test to size int/uint/uintptr to the platform in use, eliminating the whole category of "might be too small". Filed #19321 for that. Change-Id: I7e0b837bd329132d7a564468c18502dd2e724fc6 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/37576 Run-TryBot: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org> |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
all | ||
internal | ||
testdata | ||
asmdecl.go | ||
assign.go | ||
atomic.go | ||
bool.go | ||
buildtag.go | ||
cgo.go | ||
composite.go | ||
copylock.go | ||
deadcode.go | ||
doc.go | ||
httpresponse.go | ||
lostcancel.go | ||
main.go | ||
method.go | ||
nilfunc.go | ||
print.go | ||
rangeloop.go | ||
README | ||
shadow.go | ||
shift.go | ||
structtag.go | ||
tests.go | ||
types.go | ||
unsafeptr.go | ||
unused.go | ||
vet_test.go |
Vet is a tool that checks correctness of Go programs. It runs a suite of tests, each tailored to check for a particular class of errors. Examples include incorrect Printf format verbs or malformed build tags. Over time many checks have been added to vet's suite, but many more have been rejected as not appropriate for the tool. The criteria applied when selecting which checks to add are: Correctness: Vet's tools are about correctness, not style. A vet check must identify real or potential bugs that could cause incorrect compilation or execution. A check that only identifies stylistic points or alternative correct approaches to a situation is not acceptable. Frequency: Vet is run every day by many programmers, often as part of every compilation or submission. The cost in execution time is considerable, especially in aggregate, so checks must be likely enough to find real problems that they are worth the overhead of the added check. A new check that finds only a handful of problems across all existing programs, even if the problem is significant, is not worth adding to the suite everyone runs daily. Precision: Most of vet's checks are heuristic and can generate both false positives (flagging correct programs) and false negatives (not flagging incorrect ones). The rate of both these failures must be very small. A check that is too noisy will be ignored by the programmer overwhelmed by the output; a check that misses too many of the cases it's looking for will give a false sense of security. Neither is acceptable. A vet check must be accurate enough that everything it reports is worth examining, and complete enough to encourage real confidence.