NoQ added a comment. In D81407#2102951 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81407#2102951>, @Szelethus wrote:
> That could be helped additionally by creating a distinct `LeakBugReport`, > derived from `PathSensitiveBugReport`, that would take non-optional uniqueing > lambda to find the `ExplodedNode` responsible for the resource acquisition. > Or the actual `ExplodedNode` itself. That's an awesome idea, i'm speechless :) In D81407#2102641 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81407#2102641>, @balazske wrote: > I do not understand fully this "globally". A new option should be added that > affects all checkers that detect some kind of resource leak? And then > implement that kind of report uniqueness in all checkers that detect resource > leak. Yes, that's probably the best approach. If you want to experiment a lot with this stuff, you probably want data from more different checkers than just yours (i expect your checker to be relatively quiet compared to, say, MallocChecker that'll provide a lot more input to your experiment). I'd only go for an ability to configure checkers individually if we have any signal at all that they *need* to be configured individually; otherwise enforcing consistent user experience is a good thing. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81407/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81407 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
