NagyDonat wrote: > The problem is that some projects are close-to-the-metal (firmware, boot, > hardware stuff) and there actually the only way to communicate with the > hardware is via fixed addresses and a bunch of volatile pointers. > > Of course, this checker wasn't really designed for such code bases - if > anything, for the opposite. However, projects in such a domain are also > likely to have a security aware mindset, which fundamentally opposes them to > just disable some checkers - especially if they are in the `core` package. I > find this argument pretty solid.
I agree that this is a solid argument. I think the best solution would be moving this checker to the `optin` package, because that's the established way of marking checkers that are not suitable for every project. As a fallback solution, extending the documentation with a note equivalent to "this checker should be in optin, feel free to disable it " would also work, but it would be much less elegant. I'm open to accepting a new suppression mechanism, but I don't think that it should be the only solution. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132404 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
