Szelethus added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:483-504 + if (!AnOpts.RawSilencedCheckersAndPackages.empty()) { + std::vector<StringRef> Checkers = + AnOpts.getRegisteredCheckers(/*IncludeExperimental=*/true); + std::vector<StringRef> Packages = + AnOpts.getRegisteredPackages(/*IncludeExperimental=*/true); + + SmallVector<StringRef, 16> CheckersAndPackages; ---------------- Charusso wrote: > Szelethus wrote: > > Szelethus wrote: > > > Szelethus wrote: > > > > The reason why I suggested validating this in CheckerRegistry is that > > > > CheckerRegistry is the only class knowing the actual list of checkers > > > > and packages, and is able to emit diagnostics before the analysis > > > > starts. This solution wouldn't work with plugin checkers/packages. > > > I don't see this being addressed actually? > > > > > > I think it would be totally fine to just omit the validation part as I > > > said earlier, the patch will be leaner, and cases in which we're using > > > the silencing of checkers are very exotic anyways. > > Also, we should probably compliment such validation by actually writing > > tests for plugins. > > > > I've been through that process once. It isn't fun. Really-really isn't :^) > > Let's just collectively agree to "forget" this :) > Checker validation is in `CheckerRegistry`, configuration validation is in > `parseAnalyzerConfigs()`. I have made a configuration, rather than a checker > flag, so that I have not found more appropriate place and its does the job > well. If it will be needed externally, I hope someone could do better. Well isn't this checker validation? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits