vaibhav.y added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/SARIFDiagnosticPrinter.cpp:71
+ // other infrastructure necessary when emitting more rich diagnostics.
+ if (!Info.getLocation().isValid()) { // TODO: What is this case?
+ // SARIFDiag->addDiagnosticWithoutLocation(
----------------
vaibhav.y wrote:
> The location maybe if the diagnostic's source is located in the scratch
> buffer. Likely for macro expansions where token pasting is involved. Another
> case would be errors on the command line.
>
> I'm not entirely sure how the SARIF spec would handle this case, it might
> require an extension.
>
> A few ways that might work could be:
>
> Using the [[
> https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.0/csprd02/sarif-v2.0-csprd02.html#_Toc10127692
> | logicalLocations ]] property to specify ([[
> https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.0/csprd02/sarif-v2.0-csprd02.html#_Toc10127910
> | logicalLocation object ]]), this might need an extension for kind:
> "macro", another case that might need extension is diagnostics about invalid
> command line flags which are also diagnostics without a valid
>
> The parentIndex for these logical locations could be set to the physical
> location that produced them.
>
> I think this definitely warrants some discussion since the spec doesn't
> provide a clear way to express these cases.
>
> WDYT @aaron.ballman @cjdb @denik
The spec does say for "kind":
> If none of those strings accurately describes the construct, kind MAY contain
> any value specified by the analysis tool.
So an extension might not be necessary, but might be worth discussing.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131632/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131632
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
