NoQ added a comment. In D57858#1499996 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57858#1499996>, @dkrupp wrote:
> Some alpha checkers are considerably more mature than others and are quite > usable. In our experience, there are some users who are keen to run these > checkers on their code and report back any false positives to us. So in this > sense these are not "developer only" checkers. So I think we should let the > users list them, read their descriptions and try them out. Some of them will > come back with useful feedback as to how to improve them further. What are such checkers currently? Like, the ones that aren't clearly "missing limbs" and that have somebody happy to //address// feedback sent against them? Do you have a chance to call out to your users for testing the checker and actively request feedback, as @Szelethus did on the mailing list? I feel that we could do some sort of "early access checkers" programme, but i believe this would require a more careful PR than just dumping a list of alpha checkers on our users' heads. In D57858#1499996 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57858#1499996>, @dkrupp wrote: > Some users would not care if the checker gives some more false positives than > the "mature" checkers if they can catch some true positives with them. Yeah, and these are pretty much the users we're trying to protect from themselves :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
