Charusso added a comment.
In D66042#1624684 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1624684>, @NoQ wrote:
> My idea here was that this new feature isn't going to be user-facing. We
> aren't promising to support all combinations of
> enabled-disabled-silenced-dependent-registercheckerhacks, but instead use the
> new feature when we know it'll do exactly what we want. It is going to be up
> to the user-facing UI to decide how to use this feature, but not up to the
> end-users who simply want to silence diagnostics.
>
> > Here is a problem with your patch: How would you go about silencing
> > diagnostics for `osx.cocoa.RetainCount`? I suppose
> > `-analyzer-silence-checker=osx.cocoa.RetainCount`. The problem however,
> > that the checker tag associated with it refers to
> > `osx.cocoa.RetainCountBase` under the hood, so you'll need to silence that
> > instead. From that point on, any other checker that suffers from the same
> > issue is also silenced, that was not the intent.
>
> Hmm, sounds like we need to hack up a fix for the checker tag on the bug
> node, so that it was appropriate to the presumed (as opposed to actual)
> checker name(?)
`StringRef("osx.cocoa.RetainCountBase").startswith("osx.cocoa.RetainCount")` is
true, so there is no real issue until we manage the prefixes well. I assume
that the user who knows how to disable/silence a checker, knows where to read
how to disable/silence it. At least with scan-build there will not be pitfalls
with disabling the core modeling.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
