On 2 Nov 2018, at 15:28, Sam McCall <sammcc...@google.com> wrote: > In that case, I don't think it makes sense to think of the format string > parser as part of the analyzer - as the build deps suggest, it's now part of > AST and gets reused by analyzer. (Similar to how the analyzer uses other bits > of AST/clang). If there are parts only relevant to analyzer, it'd be nice to > move them out of the AST library, but I don't know to what extent that's > feasible.
The Scanf one could have been left there, but that seems even worse from a consistency point of view. > So it does seem to me like all the uses of analyzer namespaces are suspect - > moving code from Analyzer to AST is a semantic difference (the layers aren't > *just* about making the linker happy, after all!) But what it’s doing is still analysis. It seems like we’d just be making up another term for the sake of it if we changed it. Cheers. Tim _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
