Szelethus added inline comments.
================ Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DeadStoresChecker.cpp:133 std::unique_ptr<llvm::DenseSet<const VarDecl *>> InEH; + const bool WarnForDeadNestedAssignments; ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > I suggest we adopt the idiom of passing the `Checker` object around and > > asking it about its options instead of passing each option around > > separately. This is easier and i don't see any downsides. Moreover, we > > already pass the `Checker` around (just type-erased for no good reason). If > > you don't mind, i'll remove this field as part of resolving merge conflicts > > in D65182. > What about subcheckers? In any case, feel free to remove it for now. What type erasure do you talk about specifically? In any case, it might happen because of our library layout, I had a bad time with that when I did the checker registration thingie. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66733/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66733 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
