NoQ added inline comments.
================ Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DeadStoresChecker.cpp:133 std::unique_ptr<llvm::DenseSet<const VarDecl *>> InEH; + const bool WarnForDeadNestedAssignments; ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > Szelethus wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > I suggest we adopt the idiom of passing the `Checker` object around and > > > asking it about its options instead of passing each option around > > > separately. This is easier and i don't see any downsides. Moreover, we > > > already pass the `Checker` around (just type-erased for no good reason). > > > If you don't mind, i'll remove this field as part of resolving merge > > > conflicts in D65182. > > What about subcheckers? In any case, feel free to remove it for now. > What type erasure do you talk about specifically? In any case, it might > happen because of our library layout, I had a bad time with that when I did > the checker registration thingie. I meant `const DeadStoresChecker *` -> `const CheckerBase *`. > What about subcheckers? As long as they're represented by the same checker object that's defined within the same translation unit, this isn't a problem. When they're multiple checker objects - dunno, i've honestly never seen that happen (: In any case, i don't think it's a hard requirement, just an always-easier-thing-to-implement. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66733/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66733 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
