I'm not particularly invested in it being a static anlayzer warning versus a generic compiler warning. Just for discussion though, couldn't you also look at it as a use-case decision. There are warnings from the compiler that you wouldn't normally want to see. I understand that there is -pedantic, but as an organizational distinction, would you perhaps want to see some of these warnings as a static analysis phase of your development that would be triggered by '-analyze'?
- jim On 5/20/2011 4:45 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > These generally aren't the heuristics we apply when we decide whether > to put a warning in the compiler vs. in the static analyzer. > Typically, we put cheap-to-detect issues in the compiler under the > control of an appropriate warning flag. When a warning requires more > involved flow- or path-sensitive analysis, we put it in the static > analyzer. > This kind of problem seems like a solid candidate for going into the compiler. > > - Doug > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
