aaron.ballman added a comment. In D64454#3122281 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64454#3122281>, @steakhal wrote:
> It seems like the list got pretty outdated by the time. > Do you think we should really refer to the clang-analyzer checks in this > list? What about simply referring to the clangsa docs instead? > I fear, this will be a constant problem in the future. Yeah, I was worried this would get out of sycn and it really did not take long for that to happen in practice. I think there's utility in listing the checks in clang-tidy's documentation instead of pointing users to the SA documentation page. Users should have one website to go to where they can see what clang-tidy checks are available to them. > That being said, a specific grep-like test would suffice to ensure it's > always updated, but I would be surprised as a clang static analyzer developer > that I need to run the clang-tools-extra tests besides the clang-analysis > ones. > It would cause build bot breakages all the time - and just as many revert > commits by choosing that direction. > > WDYT? @aaron.ballman @njames93 @whisperity So long as pre-commit CI runs the test, I think this might be a reasonable path forward. You may forget to run the tests locally, but you should still get some failure indication before we land a patch. That should also curtail the churn from having to revert. WDYT? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64454/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64454 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
