NoQ added a comment. In D84520#2206077 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84520#2206077>, @balazske wrote:
> Do the null pointer and invalid pointer dereference belong to the same > checker, that is called //NullDereference//? Yup. And that's bad. Note that the only reason to have checker names is to allow users to enable/disable the checkers. Given that enabling/disabling core checkers was never supported to begin with, this wasn't much of an issue. Now that we're moving into the direction of allowing users to //silence// core checkers without disabling their modeling benefits, this becomes much more of a problem and there's a number of checker name inconsistencies that we'll have to revisit. Another famous inconsistency is having a popular case of null dereference, "calling a C++ method on a null pointer", is in fact checked by the `core.CallAndMessage` checker rather than by `core.NullDereference`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84520/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84520 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
