xazax.hun added a comment. In D72018#1803012 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018#1803012>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D72018#1802636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018#1802636>, @NoQ wrote: > > > Would changing the literal in the attribute have the same effect? I.e., > > `acquire_handle("Fuchsia_But_Please_Ignore_Me")`. > > > It should, but doesn't currently because we don't have any checking that the > string literal matches a name in the static analyzer or clang-tidy for that > attribute. Actually, the static analyzer checker does check for the literal, so this could work. > > > In D72018#1801739 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018#1801739>, @xazax.hun wrote: > >> I think if there are many problems with this concept, I will fall back to >> hard code this information in the checker instead of using an annotation. > > > How much hard coded information would this remove? How often do you find that > users want to add to the list of hard coded functions themselves but can't? > Maybe the benefits to the attribute outweigh the downside and it is worth > exploring ways to resolve some of these concerns -- I don't have a good > feeling for the problem space though. I expect not to have too many functions that need such exclusions. It was more about making it easier to do some exclusions without touching the analyzer. I will ask around what are the preferences of the team, maybe Artem's proposal will work for us. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72018 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
