JonasToth added a comment. In D54943#2633408 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943#2633408>, @tiagoma wrote:
> Can we get this in? I work in Microsoft Office and we have been using this > checker and it works great! There are a couple of issues with it and I would > like to contribute fixes. Hey, YES. I WILL WORK ON THIS NOW. After soooo much time has passed I think i have finally time again to bring this check over the line. I will invest at least every sunday from now on, until its done :) This is my initial work-list I would like to fix before this check can be merged: - rebase to current master (obviously) - fix `clang-apply-replacements` duplication that comes from fixes in templates (multiple instantiations create `const`-fix at the same position. but because the warning message contains different type names, they are not deduplicated) - go through the review again and check if there are missing comments to address - improve the documentation and give some hints on possible issues I think from this point on the check is ready to be improved, as there will be only false positive/false negatives left. What I observed during the initial development time was, that llvm's orcjit tests failed (i believe with a crash) after a full-llvm-transformation. This is most likely UB from casting/`std::launder`or so? Given the interest in general for this checker, we should provide some warnings that this can happen and maybe figure out what the issues is (I failed so far). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
