================ @@ -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>; ---------------- NagyDonat wrote:
> I think we are better off to wait a couple of weeks with the documentation > and naming things for now. Ok, feel free to do so, it is completely reasonable to avoid the churn. I didn't know that you have concrete plans that would significantly change the scope. I trust you that you will add documentation when you finish (or abandon) the active development. > > 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. I read this as "it is acceptable if the alpha checker crashes on _some particular corner cases_" (or has other known bugs); I would still reject a proposed alpha checker if it crashed on _almost all_ uses of the relevant language feature. (That is just unfinished code, and doesn't belong to the main branch IMO.) Analogously, I think it is OK if the documentation of an alpha checker is short or not entirely accurate, but I would prefer to require at least a placeholder. However, I don't mind if code under active development temporarily violates this – I just want to avoid leaving checkers without docs for several years. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209278 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
