aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008#1035948, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008#1035789, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > Do you know why the CSA checker is still in alpha?
>
>
> It isn't - https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768 moved it to optin.
>
>
malcolm.parsons added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008#1035789, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do you know why the CSA checker is still in alpha?
It isn't - https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768 moved it to optin.
I don't know why https://reviews.llvm.org/D34275 didn't turn it on by default.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008#1035683, @alexfh wrote:
> If the CSA checker is still in alpha, I'd proceed with this check instead of
> investing time in polishing the CSA implementation.
Do you know why the CSA checker is still in alpha? As best I can tell,
alexfh added a comment.
Aaron, WDYT?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
alexfh added a comment.
If the CSA checker is still in alpha, I'd proceed with this check instead of
investing time in polishing the CSA implementation.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008
___
cfe-commits mailing list
lebedev.ri added a comment.
Herald added subscribers: llvm-commits, xazax.hun, mgorny, klimek.
Any further thoughts here?
I was slightly bitten by this recently, and i though that it already existed as
a clang-tidy check (:
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D16008
hokein added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16008#322811, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> This check is duplicate of clang-analyzer-alpha.cplusplus.VirtualCall.
Oops... Didn't notice there is an implementation already.
> From my point of view, Clang-tidy is better place, since such calls
Eugene.Zelenko added a subscriber: Eugene.Zelenko.
Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.
This check is duplicate of clang-analyzer-alpha.cplusplus.VirtualCall.
From my point of view, Clang-tidy is better place, since such calls doesn't
depend of run-time paths.
I think will be good idea to try to
