alexfh requested changes to this revision. alexfh added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29839#674517, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29839#674301, @xazax.hun wrote: > > > Shouldn't this be a path sensitive check within the clang static analyzer > > instead? So branches are properly handled and interprocedural analysis is > > done. > > > I agree; I think this check should be part of the static analyzer because it > is path sensitive if we want it to be particularly useful. As it stands now, > it will catch trivial bugs, but by designing it as a clang-tidy check, it > isn't easily extensible to catch the bigger bugs across procedures. I totally agree with Aaron and Gabor. This analysis can't be properly implemented without path sensitivity and I can imagine many valid situations where it will be too noisy (custom functions or stream manipulators that hide width setting, for example). Clang-tidy has a bunch of lint-style analyses, but when there is a more appropriate technology to implement a certain analysis, it should be preferred. It's all trade-offs, but here path sensitive analysis seems to be a much better tool for the job. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29839 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
