Szelethus added a comment. In D54438#1315953 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438#1315953>, @Szelethus wrote:
> - ❌ Move `CheckerManager::registerChecker<T>` out of the registry functions. > - ❌ Since `shouldRegister##CHECKERNAME` is a thing, we can move everything > to the checker's constructor, supply a `CheckerManager`, eliminating the > function entirely. > - ❌ At long last, get rid of `CheckerManager::setCurrentCheckerName` and > `CheckerManager::getCurrentCheckerName`. > - ❌ It was discussed multiple times (D48285#inline-423172 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48285#inline-423172>, D49438#inline-433993 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D49438#inline-433993>), that acquiring the options > for the checker isn't too easy, as it's name will be assigned only later on, > so currently all checkers initialize their options past construction. This > can be solved either by supplying the checker's name to every constructor, or > simply storing all enabled checkers in `AnalyzerOptions`, and acquire it from > there. I'll see. Pulling this off is not only difficult, certainly super-invasive, but also unnecessary -- in the final patch (D55429 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55429>) I used a far simpler (~7 lines of code) solution, that still ensures that the checker naming problem never comes up again. Thank you so much @NoQ for all the feedback! This project has been a super fun. I still expect some skeletons to fall out of the closet, but I'm fairly confident that the overall direction is set and is good. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
