Szelethus added a comment. In D108912#2972167 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108912#2972167>, @steakhal wrote:
> Maybe a couple other noteworthy commits: > efa7df1682c2859dabe3646ee7dc01e68629417f > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGefa7df1682c2859dabe3646ee7dc01e68629417f>: better > R-value tracking. > aa454dda2eed4e71081bc57b1f32dfce2486b177 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGaa454dda2eed4e71081bc57b1f32dfce2486b177>: fixing > the modeling of `std::bit_cast<>`. I added a bit more text to the final "various fixes" point, thanks! I didn't dedicate a new point for them though, because although we know how meaningful they are, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think they are as "flashy" from an end user's perspective. Even if they greatly increase confidence in the tool, and are harder to fix then writing a simple checker ;) > cad9b7f708e2b2d19d7890494980c5e427d6d4ea > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGcad9b7f708e2b2d19d7890494980c5e427d6d4ea>: Print > time taken to analyze each function Good idea! > 9cca5c1391d637b5500ada646cf136ddb38254a3 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG9cca5c1391d637b5500ada646cf136ddb38254a3>: Make > checker silencing work for non-pathsensitive bug reports. (It might be > valuable to highlight for other vendors.) We're yet to iron out checker silencing, or finish its discussion before introducing it to the set of function intended for end users. I wouldn't like to advertise it before that happens. In D108912#2976529 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108912#2976529>, @ASDenysPetrov wrote: > Here is one more related to HTML diagnostics: > rG9e02f58780ab8734e5d27a0138bd477d18ae64a1 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG9e02f58780ab8734e5d27a0138bd477d18ae64a1> > //Highlight arrows for currently selected event// Good idea! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108912/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108912 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
