NoQ added a comment. In D53280#1325375 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53280#1325375>, @Szelethus wrote:
> I guess the solution would be to check whether there are any user supplied > flags with "analyze" substring, and add the compatibility flag then. It is > possible if not probable that a non-static-analyzer related flag with a name > like that will eventually be added, but I guess we can live with it. Yeah, that's pretty much the easiest solution that i see (i guess we need to look for `-analyzer-config` specifically), but it's still pretty gross. > The deadline is around the creation of the 8.0.0. release branch, right? I'd feel slightly more comfortable if some sort of fix gets in before the Christmas break. In D53280#1319524 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53280#1319524>, @Szelethus wrote: > We could just add the flag back, and do nothing with it. (...) Edit: I just > realized that this could easily be an issue for other users of the static > analyzer (or clang in general) as well. It doesn't sound appealing to bring back all the flags that we've removed recently, but i guess it's not that hard to track back all the options that we removed since, say, 6.0.0 and add them back, marked as "deprecated" somehow, and remove them later when either we have a solution for the general case or we don't care anymore :) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53280/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D53280 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
