Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. In D71001#1769382 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769382>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> In D71001#1769071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769071>, > @baloghadamsoftware wrote: > > > In D71001#1769018 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001#1769018>, @gribozavr2 > > wrote: > > > > > ASan can help debug this issue, and more. > > > > > > ASan is too heavyweight for this simple problem. It does not point out the > > source of the issue as quickly as this simple check which also provides a > > fix. ASan is meant for the less trivial cases. Is this really such a > > performance hit? Clang-Tidy already contains lots of checks which target a > > very narrow pattern. > > > It is not just a performance hit. Adding a new checker is primarily a > maintenance burden. With such logic, Clang-tidy is maintenance burden: 368 unaddressed request in Bugzilla is very telling. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
