NoQ added a comment. In D59555#1514602 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59555#1514602>, @NoQ wrote:
> I'm still in doubts on how to connect your work with the `CallDescription` > effort. I'll think more about that. I guess i'll just make a yaml reader for `CallDescription`s as soon as the interface settles down a bit, and then propose you to switch to using it. ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/GenericTaintChecker.cpp:804-805 + auto *Checker = mgr.registerChecker<GenericTaintChecker>(); + StringRef ConfigFile = + mgr.getAnalyzerOptions().getCheckerStringOption(Checker, "Config", ""); + llvm::Optional<TaintConfig> Config = ---------------- I think i'll softly advocate for a more centralized format that doesn't require every checker to implement an option for just that purpose. Will you be happy with a global analyzer flag, eg. `-analyzer-config api-yaml=/home/foo/analyzer.yaml` and then: ```lang=yaml Checker: Name: alpha.security.taint.TaintPropagation Config: Propagations: ... ``` with possibly multiple checkers in the same file? I guess we can change it later if you don't mind breaking flag compatibility. ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Yaml.h:16-17 + if (std::error_code ec = Buffer.getError()) { + llvm::errs() << "Error when getting TaintPropagation's config file '" + << ConfigFile << "': " << ec.message() << '\n'; + return {}; ---------------- I believe we should emit a compile error-like diagnostic here. One of the good things about compile errors would be that GUIs like scan-build would notify their users about compile errors in a friendly manner, while dumps to `llvm::errs()` will be completely ignored. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59555/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59555 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits