Szelethus added a comment. In D152436#4411912 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4411912>, @steakhal wrote:
> In D152436#4408811 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4408811>, @balazske > wrote: > >> In D152436#4408301 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436#4408301>, @steakhal >> wrote: >> >>> I looked at the TPs, and if the violation was introduced by an assumption >>> (instead of an assignment), then it's really hard to spot which assumption >>> is important for the bug. >>> I wonder if we could add the `TrackConstraintBRVisitor` to the bugreport to >>> "highlight" that particular assumption/place. >> >> The question is first if this problem must be fixed before the checker comes >> out of alpha state. If yes I try to make another patch with this fix. I >> tried this previously but do not remember exactly what the problem was. > > WIthout an explicit note message there, I don't see how could we advertise > this as a "mature" checker. Is it possible to hide functions hindered by this problem behing an off-by-default flag? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
