Szelethus added a comment.
In D66042#1627842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1627842>, @Charusso wrote:
> Any analyzer config flag is equally accessible to anyone as the driver flags
> as they are both flags. The only difference is the config flags are more code
> to implement, and a lot more difficult to use. @NoQ, why the hell would we
> pick another type of flag which makes zero improvement? The goal is to
> introduce the best possible solution, which is already here.
Well, `-analyzer-checker` and `-analyzer-silence-checker` would be on the same
level, while there isn't a consensus on that silencing checkers is desired.
Config flags are exactly one layer lower, that much more harder is it to
discover. They are *just* a tad bit more uncomfortable to use, but that
shouldn't matter inside `scan-build`s implementation, should it?
By the way, are they longer to implement? We gain 5 LOC by deleting the
existing flags. Depending on how long you're like to make your description, the
config flag, with a newline, would add 3-4 more.
ANALYZER_OPTION(
StringRef, CheckersAndPackagesToSilence, "analyzer-silence-checkers",
"A comma-separated list of checkers and packages to silence.", "")
The changes you made in `clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp` should be
moved after the call to `parseAnalyzerConfigs`, and instead of this:
Opts.CheckerSilenceVector.clear();
for (const Arg *A : Args.filtered(OPT_analyzer_silence_checker)) {
A->claim();
// We can have a list of comma separated checker names, e.g:
// '-analyzer-checker=cocoa,unix'
StringRef checkerList = A->getValue();
SmallVector<StringRef, 16> checkers;
checkerList.split(checkers, ",");
for (auto checker : checkers)
Opts.CheckerSilenceVector.emplace_back(checker);
}
We should do this:
assert(Opts.CheckerSilenceVector.empty());
llvm::SmallVector<StringRef, 16> CheckerList;
Opts.CheckersAndPackagesToSilence.split(CheckerList, ',');
for (StringRef Checker : CheckerList)
Opts.CheckerSilenceVector.emplace_back(checker);
Thats another 5 LOC minus, we actually lost 7! I suspect not even the
additional scan-build would make it worse.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
