NoQ accepted this revision.
NoQ added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks great, thanks!
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistry.cpp:526
+ for (const auto &Checker : Checkers) {
+ // The order of this if branches is significant, we wouldn't like to
display
+ // developer checkers even in the alpha output. For example,
----------------
`this` -> `these` :)
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistry.cpp:527-530
+ // developer checkers even in the alpha output. For example,
+ // alpha.cplusplus.IteratorModeling is a modeling checker, hence it's
hidden
+ // by default, and users (even when the user is a developer of an alpha
+ // checker) shouldn't normally tinker with whether they should be enabled.
----------------
Hmm, just thought about this: by this logic, should we hide all `core`
checkers? Because we don't really support users tinkering with whether they
should be enabled :)
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62093/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62093
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
