NoQ added a comment. In D65182#1604280 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65182#1604280>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> Hmm, I was thinking on the same for some time but I wonder how many checkers > could find the correct fixits? Maybe the removal fixits of double frees or > double file closes, but I am afraid that for most of our path-sensitive > checks there are no obvious fixits. Even `clang-tidy` cannot provide a fixit > for most of its findings. However, generally I like the idea, even for the > few checkers it can be applied to. I'd be pretty surprised if any path-sensitive checker would ever have a really good fixit, which is why i never was super excited about this idea when people were asking for it on the mailing lists. This is definitely mostly for syntactic checkers (think `MallocSizeof` or some of our Objective-C checkers). But at least it's one less artificial roadblock for people choosing where to put their checker :/ CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65182/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65182 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
