lebedev.ri added a comment. In D67567#1671499 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67567#1671499>, @mwyman wrote:
> In D67567#1670264 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67567#1670264>, @NoQ wrote: > > > FTR, we already have a similar Static Analyzer check, eg.: > > > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/release_80/test/Analysis/dispatch-once.m#L15 > > > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/release_80/test/Analysis/dispatch-once.m#L26 > > > > Your check is a bit more aggressive but i don't see why didn't we do it > > that way in the first place :) Though you won't be able to warn on the heap > > example. > > > The Static Analyzer check was pointed out by a colleague; unfortunately our > build environment doesn't currently play nice with running the static > analyzer (so many devs don't end up running it) but ClangTidy gets run as > part of our code review process. Given libdispatch's documented requirements, > it seemed reasonable to be aggressive with a ClangTidy check when we can > reasonably identify non-static/global storage. You can run static analyzer checks as normal clang-tidy checks. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67567/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67567 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
