NoQ added a comment. In D66042#1626631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1626631>, @Szelethus wrote:
> In D66042#1626513 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1626513>, @Charusso wrote: > > > 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. > > > Given our discussion, we've thrown out all but 1 of the 4, by the way (fixing > the actual problem, making this a config, creating checker/package options, > solving this in scan-build only), ideas. Make this a config. You're correct, > thats about 5 LOC change in this patch, at which point I'd be happy to accept > :) You mean something like `-analyzer-config silence-checkers=core.DivideZero`? I guess we can do that, right? In D66042#1626631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1626631>, @Szelethus wrote: > In D66042#1626513 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66042#1626513>, @Charusso wrote: > > > 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. > > > I feel very uncomfortable with this statement. F9787467: photo_2019-08-13_13-23-13.jpg <https://reviews.llvm.org/F9787467> 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
