alexfh added a comment.
In D66042#1625898 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1625898>, @NoQ wrote:
> While we're here: i poked your silencing mechanism a little bit and even
> though i'm still pretty sure you couldn't have done it perfectly without our
> help, it sounds as if the only problem you have with it is that the
> path-sensitive checkers keep running even if only path-insensitive checkers
> are enabled:
>
> $ clang-tidy test.c -checks=-*,clang-analyzer-unix.cstring.BadSizeArg --
> -Xclang -analyzer-display-progress
>
> ANALYZE (Syntax): /Users/adergachev/test/test.c foo
> // <== only this part will actually influence
>
> // the results of analysis in this invocation
> ANALYZE (Path, Inline_Regular): /Users/adergachev/test/test.c foo
> // <== however this part is sloooooow
>
>
> This may be a performance issue for users who want fast analysis but are
> interested in some path-insensitive Static Analyzer checks (and they don't
> seem to have a way around that when they limit themselves to clang-tidy's own
> CLI), but apart from that you indeed seem to be fine.
Should this be different with clang and this patch? Unfortunately, it doesn't
apply cleanly, and I can't verify. But without this patch clang seems to have
the same two ANALYZE log lines regardless of whether I enable `core` checkers
or not:
$ clang -cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker core,unix.cstring.BadSizeArg
-analyzer-display-progress /tmp/q.cc
/tmp/q.cc:2:12: warning: division by zero is undefined
(void)(1 / 0);
^ ~
ANALYZE (Syntax): /tmp/q.cc test_disable_core_div_by_zero()
ANALYZE (Path, Inline_Regular): /tmp/q.cc test_disable_core_div_by_zero()
/tmp/q.cc:2:12: warning: Division by zero
(void)(1 / 0);
~~^~~
2 warnings generated.
$ clang -cc1 -analyze -analyzer-checker unix.cstring.BadSizeArg
-analyzer-display-progress /tmp/q.cc
/tmp/q.cc:2:12: warning: division by zero is undefined
(void)(1 / 0);
^ ~
ANALYZE (Syntax): /tmp/q.cc test_disable_core_div_by_zero()
ANALYZE (Path, Inline_Regular): /tmp/q.cc test_disable_core_div_by_zero()
1 warning generated.
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
