Szelethus added a comment. In D69662#1890007 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69662#1890007>, @NoQ wrote:
> In D69662#1889545 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69662#1889545>, @Szelethus wrote: > > > Sorry for the slack :) > > > > One should never count on the invocation order of callback funcions in > > between checkers. In fact, I'm not too sure that my patches affect this, > > but I suspect that it does, as the container of choice for checker objects > > is `std::vector`. > > > With checker dependencies introduced, i think it's not an unreasonable > guarantee to make. Like, if you rely on your dependency to model things for > you, you probably want to have your callbacks called after everything is set > up by the dependency. > > That said, it's not always obvious what does "after" mean. I wouldn't be > shocked if it turns out that the correct order is different in pre-stmt and > post-stmt (i.e., dependent - dependency - actual event - dependency - > dependent). Well, you raise a valid point. While I do think that implementing complex checkers that have strong interaction should be left to the bit-more-experienced, maybe it'd be better to make the interface a bit more intuitive. I like to point at `IteratorChecker`, which is spread out across multiple files, despite it packing a lot of knowledge. I'm afraid that I too have more questions then possible solution to this answer. My patches related to `MallocChecker` was (is) a research of some sort to come up with one. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69662/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69662 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
