steakhal wrote: > However, I feel an urge to bikeshed that the "[invisible]" prefix is a bit > puzzling for the developer who encounters it. Consider replacing it with the > prefix "[debug]" which is a more conventional signal for "this is a debug > printout" (i.e. normal users won't see it). Another alternative could be > adding the name of the command-line flag either before or after the printout > to explain and highlight its origin (similarly to the way how the checker > name is printed).
I'm fine with either of those. Did you envision `[debug] XYZ`, and `XYZ [-analyzer-note-analysis-entry-points]`? Which should I pursue? > By the way what's the reason for implementing this as a command-line flag > instead of a checker in the `debug` group? (I'd presume that a debug checker > would involve more boilerplate.) I don't see currently a way to hook all `emitReport` calls from a different checker. Note that this flag alters most CSA diagnostics, like path-sensitive ones,and also some non-path-sensitive ones, such as the one that the DeadStores checker emits. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84823 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
