NoQ added a comment. Guys, what do you think about a checker that warns on uninitialized fields only when at least one field is initialized? I'd be much more confident about turning such check on by default. We can still keep a `pedantic` version.
> I can say with confidence that CodeChecker does not break if the same > category name is used by two different analyzers. Does the same stand for > XCode / Scan-Build? XCode and Scan-Build only support one analyzer, so it won't be a problem (at least not until more analyzers get supported). But in general if we do overlapping names, we must be super sure that they mean the same thing in both analyzers, so that we didn't end up with a user interface in which one of the relatively common task would be to enable clang-tidy "bugprone" checkers and disable static analyzer "bugprone" checkers but the user would have to list all checkers by name in order to accomplish that because they all stay in the same package. https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
