Szelethus added a comment. In D55400#1367046 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55400#1367046>, @george.karpenkov wrote:
> > Hmmm, does this mess with options that bad? Could you please clarify? > > `registerChecker` gets-or-creates a checker object. A checker name (used for > getting the options) is set the first time it's created. > The checker which was created first "wins" and gets to name the resulting > checker. > In practice it basically means that options and checkers reusing the same > class do not work. > Do you have better ideas on how this could be arranged? Sure, in fact its already implemented and got accepted by @NoQ, I just didnt have the time to commit and fine tune :) The solution is essentially to create `CheckerManager::getChecker` alongside `registerChecker`, and making them in order assert if the checker is unregistered, and assert when the checked is already registered. In an earlier patch, I implement handling of dependencies on a higher level, essentially making `CheckerRegistry` take care of this, instead of making checker registry functions register multiple checkers, or, like in this case, register a common base. Before the registry function for either RetainCound or OSObjectRetainCount is called (which will now invoke `getChecker`), the registry function for RetainCountBase will be called, that will register the actual checker object. You can take a look at how this would look like in D54438 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54438>. Would love to hear your thoughts on this! :) > I think the current situation is a mess - ideally I would prefer to be able > to access the options in the constructor, but we can't even do that, > since `registerChecker` sets the checker name and is called after the object > has been constructed. > It seems that it would only make sense if the checker name is known at the > time the checker is constructed: probably the function `registerXChecker` > should get it as an argument. The proposed solution solves this issue as well. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55400/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55400 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
