bcraig added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14779#292066, @zaks.anna wrote:
> > I may be mistaken, but this check looks more appropriate for Clang-tidy. > > > This is a syntactic check. Both clang-tidy as well as the clang static > analyzer contain this type of checks. If we move all syntactic checks to > clang-tidy, the users that use the analyzer but do not use clang-tidy will > not receive the warnings. There is an issue in the opposite direction as well. I am looking into clang-tidy, and if that's the way we need to go, then I'll do it, but I have a preference for this to exist in the static analyzer side of things. Note that clang-tidy users get this "for free". With no changes to clang tidy code, -checks=clang-analyzer-performance* will get you padding warnings. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14779 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
