alexey.knyshev added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40715#951665, @dcoughlin wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this! > > This checker is in the 'core' package, which means (when moved out of alpha) > it will be enabled by default. > > - Do you think that this checker should be enabled by default for all users > of the analyzer? I think so > - If users do actually want to use labels in their switch statements, how > should they suppress the diagnostics from the checker? Good point, is there recommended way to implement options for checker? Where can I find any reference example? > - What is the benefit of adding this check in the static analyzer vs. in > clang-tidy? > > (My own sense is that the check for labels that are close to "default" could > be on by default but that warning on *any* label inside a switch is more > stylistic. I think users should have to opt in to that check.) It makes sense. So, I can make generic case when we found any label in swichStmt opt-in (default=off) and left cases when it looks like typo in 'case' or 'default' keywords enabled by default. Thanks! Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D40715 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
