Sorry I lost track of this. Having understood the code a bit more, the current split between the AST/analysis/static analyzer isn't as clear as I thought. So I'm not sure the layering is perfect here, but the fault doesn't lie with your patch. Sorry for the noise.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:43 PM Tim Northover <tnortho...@apple.com> wrote: > On 2 Nov 2018, at 15:28, Sam McCall <sammcc...@google.com> wrote: > > In that case, I don't think it makes sense to think of the format string > parser as part of the analyzer - as the build deps suggest, it's now part > of AST and gets reused by analyzer. (Similar to how the analyzer uses other > bits of AST/clang). If there are parts only relevant to analyzer, it'd be > nice to move them out of the AST library, but I don't know to what extent > that's feasible. > > The Scanf one could have been left there, but that seems even worse from a > consistency point of view. > > > So it does seem to me like all the uses of analyzer namespaces are > suspect - moving code from Analyzer to AST is a semantic difference (the > layers aren't *just* about making the linker happy, after all!) > > But what it’s doing is still analysis. It seems like we’d just be making > up another term for the sake of it if we changed it. > > Cheers. > > Tim
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
