On 2015-09-25 7:35 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com <mailto:ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>> wrote:On 2015-09-25 12:01 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: At Mozilla, it seems like previous discussions on this kind of thing (style and warnings come to mind) have dealt with this at a file/directory/module level... Someone fixes up a thing completely, adds it to a whitelist, and then it's a simple pass/fail. Could that work here too? Yes, that is another option for checks that tons of existing code don't pass. That'll help some. The problem of attributing new errors to the correct part of the diff remains, and is quite interesting.
FWIW based on an in-person discussion with gps last week, it seems like MozReview's static analysis support is built for cheap analyses that do not need to invoke the build system, so C++ analysis will probably not be integrated with MozReview (at least not any time soon), so we're going to need to rely on try pushes any way.
I'm working on extending our C++ static analysis coverage so I hope to make it much more difficult for something to get past the checks on various platforms in the future.
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
