alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086479, @pfultz2 wrote:
> > But still, could you explain the use case and why a local modification of
> > clang-tidy is not an option?
>
> Because I would like to direct users to try an alpha check on their local
> codebases without having to tell them to rebuild clang.
Okay, let's go with a hidden flag (something explicit enough, e.g.
`-allow-enabling-static-analyzer-alpha-checkers`) and remove the clang-tidy
configuration option (so that there's no way it can silently sit in the options
file, and instead the flag has to be used in each clang-tidy invocation). IIUC,
Devin was not completely opposed to this sort of a solution?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:373-376
// FIXME: Remove this option once clang's cfg-temporary-dtors option defaults
// to true.
AnalyzerOptions->Config["cfg-temporary-dtors"] =
Context.getOptions().AnalyzeTemporaryDtors ? "true" : "false";
----------------
pfultz2 wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > alexfh wrote:
> > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > Btw this is already enabled by default.
> > > Should we kill the flag completely?
> > I've removed the clang-tidy configuration option in r331456.
> I didnt modify this line of code. Are you just wanting me to rebase?
I was just answering NoQ's comment. Sorry for the off-topic.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
