malcolm.parsons added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25659#588663, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25659#588658, @alexfh wrote: > > > I think, silently choosing one of the checks may be confusing and > > counter-intuitive. Should we just warn in case we see the same check > > enabled by multiple aliases? > > > And by "aliases" I mean different names under which the check is registered. > I'm not sure I see the benefit of introducing a separate concept and a > separate API for registering checks under multiple names. This introduces > another sort of dynamic binding, which we have to have good reasons for. Is using `typeid()` on the constructed checks OK? https://reviews.llvm.org/D25659 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
