Charusso marked 2 inline comments as done.
Charusso added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:483-504
+ if (!AnOpts.RawSilencedCheckersAndPackages.empty()) {
+ std::vector<StringRef> Checkers =
+ AnOpts.getRegisteredCheckers(/*IncludeExperimental=*/true);
+ std::vector<StringRef> Packages =
+ AnOpts.getRegisteredPackages(/*IncludeExperimental=*/true);
+
+ SmallVector<StringRef, 16> CheckersAndPackages;
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > The reason why I suggested validating this in CheckerRegistry is that
> > > CheckerRegistry is the only class knowing the actual list of checkers and
> > > packages, and is able to emit diagnostics before the analysis starts.
> > > This solution wouldn't work with plugin checkers/packages.
> > I don't see this being addressed actually?
> >
> > I think it would be totally fine to just omit the validation part as I said
> > earlier, the patch will be leaner, and cases in which we're using the
> > silencing of checkers are very exotic anyways.
> Also, we should probably compliment such validation by actually writing tests
> for plugins.
>
> I've been through that process once. It isn't fun. Really-really isn't :^)
> Let's just collectively agree to "forget" this :)
Checker validation is in `CheckerRegistry`, configuration validation is in
`parseAnalyzerConfigs()`. I have made a configuration, rather than a checker
flag, so that I have not found more appropriate place and its does the job
well. If it will be needed externally, I hope someone could do better.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
