NoQ added a comment. > While this sounds really good for basic use cases I think it quickly becomes > unmanageable for power users.
It's strictly better than the current situation because nothing prevents us from keeping the existing checker names as a subset of tags (i.e., #core/#core.CallAndMessage or checker:core/checker:core.CallAndMessage). We don't even need to break backwards compatibility. > I am not sure whether using the enable/disable order is user-friendly enough. I guess it's either the order or allowing users to write boolean formulas :| Also if they're so smart why don't they introduce their own categories so that to avoid writing complicated formulas? (checkmate atheists!) (at least that's what i expect IDE developers to do on a regular basis; complicated formulas don't need to be autogenerated from high-level ordinary-user-facing checkboxes). > I'd love to see a more detailed RFC about the topic if someone has the > time/up to it. Yup, this would absolutely require a discussion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77866/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77866 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
