Szelethus added a comment. In D64274#1574118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1574118>, @NoQ wrote:
> Mmm, no, not really; it seems that if i introduce a checker dependency, i > also have to put the option onto the base checker, otherwise the checker name > wouldn't match when i do > `getCheckerBooleanOption(getChecker<VirtualCallChecker>(), "PureOnly")`. > Which means that the option name will inevitably change. @Szelethus, do i > understand this correctly? I don't think it would change, the only "problem" would be that the *checker object's* name would be `cplusplus.PureVirtualCall`. You can still however invoke `getChecker*Option` by passing the `optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall` name as the first argument, which you can retrieve through `CheckerManager::getCurrentCheckName` (?). In D64274#1574086 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1574086>, @NoQ wrote: > Hmm, wait, i don't really break backwards compatibility. Fridays... > Previously we have impure-checking when we enable the optin checker and > pureonly-checking when we disable the option. > > I can easily bring back the option, only for the purposes of backwards > compatibility, so that it was turning off impure-checking. > > In this case we'll still have impure-checking when we enable the optin > checker and pureonly-checking when we disable the option. The only difference > is that pureonly-checking is now going to be on by default. I think we could just remove the option altogether. I'll take a second look on CodeCheckers side, but im reasonably sure we dont use it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
