balazske added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:2490-2523 +**List of checked functions** + +``fgetc``, ``fread``, ``fwrite``, ``getc``, ``getchar``, ``getdelim``, +``getenv``, ``getline``, ``isalnum``, ``isalpha``, ``isascii``, ``isblank``, +``isdigit``, ``isgraph``, ``islower``, ``isprint``, ``ispunct``, ``isspace``, +``isupper``, ``isxdigit``, ``read``, ``toascii``, ``tolower``, ``toupper``, +``write`` ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > balazske wrote: > > Szelethus wrote: > > > We should create an option or something the //actual// list of functions > > > we model. This is the prime example of unsustainable documenting. > > Such function lists are used at documentation of other checkers, but I am > > not sure if it is good to add such a long list here. Probably the > > "DisplayLoadedSummaries" option of `apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions` > > checker can be used, this lists only the actually found functions (that > > have available declaration and are enabled), and the console output needs > > to be observed to see the list. And this option is currently not documented. > > Such function lists are used at documentation of other checkers > > Is it possible that those lists are not really expected to change? We do > expect the list for this checker to grow, do we not? At first look not all other checkers check every possible function, only the most common ones, it looks possible to extend these. Some have an incomplete list in the documentation. My concern was if an user want to know if a specific function is checked or not. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149447/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149447 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
