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
