vsavchenko added a comment. In D93110#2534690 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110#2534690>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D93110#2529917 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110#2529917>, @NoQ wrote: > >>> What I want to avoid is having a static analyzer-specific suppression >>> attribute, and a different one for clang-tidy, and a third one for the >>> frontend. >> >> Given that there are already multiple suppression mechanisms circulating >> around (clang-tidy's `// NOLINT`, frontend pragmas, static analyzer's >> `#ifdef __clang_analyzer__`, now also attribute), i guess a path forward >> would be to eventually add support for multiple mechanisms everywhere. This >> may be tedious to implement but benefits may be well worth it. Consistency >> across tools is important when tools are used together; for instance, when >> clang-tidy integrates static analyzer, static analyzer automatically starts >> supporting `// NOLINT` through clang-tidy's diagnostic consumer magic. This >> would also be amazing for discoverability: users can keep using their >> preferred mechanism and it'd just work out of the box when they add a new >> tool to their arsenal. > > To be clear, I'm fine with multiple mechanisms, but not fine with multiple of > the same mechanisms. e.g., I don't think it's an issue that we can suppress > via the command line, pragmas, NOLINT comments, and attribute usage, but I do > think it's a problem if there's one attribute used by clang-tidy and a > different attribute used by the static analyzer, and a third attribute for > clang itself. Using different attributes causes users to have to consider > what basically amount to implementation details of their toolchain and makes > it harder to do things like integrate clang-tidy and the clang static > analyzer together. We can integrate these solutions together for clang-tidy and for clang static analyzer, it's not a problem at all. I would've used the existing Suppress attribute if it was without `gsl` part. As I mentioned in the summary, at the moment, we want to use it ONLY inside functions. I can see that `SuppressAttr` is not used anywhere in the whole, but I can't be sure that it's not used somewhere externally. So, I couldn't just reduce the scope of it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
