alexfh added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19451#411990, @alexfh wrote:
> BTW, have you seen the `alpha.core.IdenticalExpr` static analyzer checker? Anna, Jordan, and whoever else is interested in the `alpha.core.IdenticalExpr` checker (lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IdenticalExprChecker.cpp), it looks like Etienne has reinvented a large part of this checker as a clang-tidy check. I'm not sure which of these supports more cases and has more false positives (given that the `alpha.core.IdenticalExpr` checker was there for quite a while, but IIUC, this clang-tidy check has been tested on a huge code base with pretty good results). A few questions to all of you: 1. is the `alpha.core.IdenticalExpr` checker going to be released in the near future? 2. is anyone actively working on it? 3. given that Etienne seems to be planning to continue actively working on the clang-tidy analog of that static analyzer checker, are you fine to move all of this checker's (`alpha.core.IdenticalExpr`) functionality to clang-tidy? 4. more generally, should we officially recommend to use clang-tidy (instead of the static analyzer) for writing AST-based checks that don't require any path-based analysis? http://reviews.llvm.org/D19451 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
