Charusso added a comment. In D66042#1626460 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1626460>, @NoQ wrote:
> I'd like to hear @Szelethus's opinion one more time on this patch. I'm > perfectly fine with abandoning the idea and going for in-checker > suppressions, simply because there's at least one strong opinion against it > and i don't want to push this further, but i just honestly think this patch > is a good idea. This discussion has so far been very useful regardless, at > least to me personally. I really appreacite your ideas. It is unbelievable you guys bring up 20 different ideas for 5 LOC. I cannot really argue about any idea, as every of them could be a possible solution. I have to pick the right solution, and drop the other 19. I believe with that in mind what is an experimental feature and how we support to use the Analyzer, none of the 19 ideas would born. I did not want to refuse that many ideas, but I have to, because we could pick at most 1 to implement per patch. That is why I really try to emphasize it is under that experimental feature umbrella and we have to think no more about that patch from that point: since the beginning. I am so sorry I have to be a dictator here, but someone - probably me or the code owner - has to decide to move forward. 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
