Szelethus added a comment. I personally preferred the previous diff, the reporting part of the checker and the string length modeling was separated far more cleanly.
In D84316#2171267 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84316#2171267>, @NoQ wrote: > Mmm, none of these benefits sound like they outweigh confusing the cost of > users with a new checker flag that can't even be used in any sensible way. I think the new checker would be an ideal candidate for a hidden checker, not to mention that D78126 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D78126>+D81761 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81761> enforces it anyways with asserts. With that in mind, I don't see what we're giving up here. > If you want separate files, just put the checker into a header and include it > from multiple cpp files. A few checkers already do that - RetainCountChecker, > MPIChecker, UninitializedObjectChecker. There's nothing fundamental about > keeping checkers in an anonymous namespace. With that said, I don't want to > make an example out of RetainCountChecker -- the way it is structured is not > in line, at least the way I see it, with the modern way to develop large > checkers. I agree that there is no magical gain from keeping them there. UninitializedObjectChecker, btw, doesn't peek out -- only some of the related infrastructure. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84316/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84316 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
