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 doesn't > depend of run-time paths. > > I think will be good idea to try to establish better functionality separation > between Clang/Clang-tidy/Clang Static Analyzer. Current situation looks like > different teams try to take everything coming to them without considering big > picture. This my impression based on including padding check in Clang Static > Analyzer. > > I may be wrong, but Clang seems even better place for such warnings. However clang-tidy has a ' clang-analyzer-*' check option to run the clang static analyzer check. I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile to move `VirtualCall` check to the module in clang-tidy. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D16008 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
