NoQ added a comment. I think this patch is a fairly historic moment to celebratte.
> checker callback evaluation order is ensured And it will be the same for all callbacks, right? Like, we're not doing this thing yet where it intentionally goes like chk1->checkPreCall(); chk2->checkPreCall(); chk2->checkPostCall(); chk1->checkPostCall(); ? ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/CheckerBase.td:141-142 +/// Describes preferred registration and evaluation order in between checkers. +/// Unlike strong dependencies, this expresses dependencies in between +/// diagnostics, and *not* modeling. In the case of an unsatisfied (disabled) +/// weak dependency, the dependent checker might still be registered. If the ---------------- I wouldn't mind having predictable callback evaluation order for modeling as well. What's causing you to drop this scenario? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80905/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80905 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
