NoQ added a comment. In D67420#1668099 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420#1668099>, @Szelethus wrote:
> ...and the second is similar in nature, but in the actual code -- it doesn't > doesn't feel natural to me that `AnalyzerOptions` is required to construct > this, while at the same time we're trying to make diagnostics construction > independent of the analyzer. It's not that `AnalyzerOptions` is //necessary// to construct this, it's more like //sufficient//. `PathDiagnosticConsumerOptions` is a plain de-encapsulated aggregate and anybody can aggregate-initialize or mutate it. But in the realm of the Analyzer it has "accidentally" turned out that `AnalyzerOptions` has just the right amount of information to fill it in. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67420 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
