Szelethus marked 3 inline comments as done. Szelethus 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 ---------------- NoQ wrote: > 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? Pretty much, yes. Its not just useless -- I don't think establishing a //preferred// evaluation order over //guaranteed// for modeling checkers could ever be correct. Not only that, I think adding new kinds of dependencies must be very well justified to counterweight the extra complexity, they should be intuitive and "just work". There would be a lot of corner cases if these dependencies could be too intertwined, and not only would they be a mess to implement, it could be confusing on the checker developer's end. 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
