NoQ added inline comments.
================ 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 ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > I wouldn't mind having predictable callback evaluation order for modeling > > as well. What's causing you to drop this scenario? > D80905#2066219 Ok, so do i understand it correctly that the only reason you're omitting the "and modeling" clause here is because in your ultimate vision (which i completely agree with) checkers either do modeling or checking, and modeling-checkers never need to be disabled to begin with, so weak dependencies are useless for them, which is why this whole patch is entirely about diagnostics? 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
