Szelethus added a comment. > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54557#1300653, @NoQ wrote: > >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54557#1299899, @Szelethus wrote: >> >> > I think we should either remove the non-default functionality (which >> > wouldn't be ideal), or emphasise somewhere (open projects?) that there is >> > still work to be done, but leaving it to be forgotten and essentially >> > making it an extra maintenance work would be, in my optinion, the worst >> > case scenario. `Aggressive` isn't `Pedantic` because it actually emits >> > warnings on correct code, and it's not a simple matter of too many reports >> > being emitted, let's also document that this is an experimental feature, >> > not a power-user-only thing. >> >> >> I only kept the option around because i was under an impression that i'm >> intruding into a checker that already has some happy users, probably >> breaking existing workflows. If this option is unnecessary, i'd be happy to >> remove it :) > > > Hmm, I'll ask around, but I'm not aware of any ongoing (or planned in the > near future) work on this particular checker.
Yup, there seems to be a desire to keep it around. Let's add an entry to the open projects maybe? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54557 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
