Hi Ted,

Somewhat ironically, your comment was a false positive for the spam filter which is why it's only appearing now (I had to go in and unmark it as spam).

As for false positives, I didn't consider them a big deal as I know it's early and that you guys will be refining it as time goes on. I think that no tool will be perfect in that regard and that maybe the focus should be to specify arbitrary blocks to be ignored by the checker. For instance, I've turned off the gcc check for shadowed variables because it would complain about me using the variable "index" (which I use a lot) because of some header somewhere that defined it. The point being that users may stop using the tool if it bugs them too much about the same thing over and over. I can see there being some odd pattern that the checker could not be reasonably catch but the programmer wants to leave the way it is. Giving the ability to have the checker skip these instances would do a lot towards alleviating this type of issue.

I'll also send you an email about it but I just wanted to say that it's a great tool and I've already found it useful in a production setting.