alexfh added a comment. In D66042#1624081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1624081>, @NoQ wrote:
> +@alexfh because clang-tidy now finally has a way of safely disabling core > checkers without causing crashes all over the place! Would you like to take > the same approach as we picked in scan-build, i.e. when the user asks to > disable a core checker, silence it instead? clang-tidy's native way to enable/disable diagnostics is applied to the static analyzer twice: first time when the list of enabled checkers is created (and then core checkers are always added to that list), and the second time - to each diagnostic generated by the static analyzer (this time the original check name filter is applied, without core checkers). This already works consistently from a user's perspective: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/MEvSsP Are there any benefits in using the new CheckerSilenceVector mechanism in clang-tidy? 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
