================ @@ -806,6 +806,11 @@ def UseAfterLifetimeEnd : Checker<"UseAfterLifetimeEnd">, Dependencies<[LifetimeModeling]>, Documentation<NotDocumented>; +def ReportDanglingPtrDeref : Checker<"ReportDanglingPtrDeref">, + HelpText<"Check for dereferences of a dangling pointer">, + Dependencies<[LifetimeModeling]>, + Documentation<NotDocumented>; ---------------- steakhal wrote:
This checker is expected to change in the close future multiple times. The scope of the checker is subject to change. Just like the name of the checker because that should also resemble the scope. This is why I didn't care too much about the checker name (thus I was fine with the `Reporting` in the name). I think we are better off to wait a couple of weeks with the documentation and naming things for now. Quoting the docs: > In addition to these, the analyzer contains a number of [Experimental > Checkers](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/analyzer/checkers.html#alpha-checkers) > (aka alpha checkers). These checkers are under development and are switched > off by default. They may crash or emit a higher number of false positives. In practical terms, the bar is really really low. It shouldn't get in the way of regular users. Like if even crashing is allowed, I don't think documentation should be a blocker or expected. Consequently, blocking PRs for alphas needs some serious concerns. On the flip side, this is why nominating alphas is difficult. Because we need to do a lot of work to evaluate the (functional and non-functional) quality and documentation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209278 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
