aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29839#674301, @xazax.hun wrote:
> Shouldn't this be a path sensitive check within the clang static analyzer > instead? So branches are properly handled and interprocedural analysis is > done. I agree; I think this check should be part of the static analyzer because it is path sensitive if we want it to be particularly useful. As it stands now, it will catch trivial bugs, but by designing it as a clang-tidy check, it isn't easily extensible to catch the bigger bugs across procedures. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29839 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
