Hmm, right now there is no way to use alpha checks in clang tidy? Piotr On Nov 10, 2016 10:57, "Malcolm Parsons via cfe-commits" < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 9 November 2016 at 18:50, Devin Coughlin <dcough...@apple.com> wrote: > > > We agree that this is a valuable checker and are committed to getting it > out of alpha. This check is in alpha because: > > > > a) The diagnostic experience is not very good. It reports a call path > directly in the diagnostic message (for example “Call path: foo <— bar” for > a call to foo() in bar()) rather than as a path diagnostic. > > Agreed. > > > b) The lack of path-sensitive reasoning may result in false positives > when a called function uses a member variable flag to track whether > initialization is complete and does not call the virtual member function > during initialization. > > Right, we're not doing this. > > > c) The check issues a warning for both calls to pure virtual functions > (which is always an error) and non-pure virtual functions (which is more of > a code smell and may be a false positive). > > I'm using static analysis to find code smells. > > > I’ll commit to doing Step 1) in the immediate future and Step 2) > eventually. Once the checker is on by default we’ll need to assess whether > the false positive rate from c) is too high — if so, we’ll need to turn the > non-pure-virtual case off by default. > > LGTM. > > Thanks, > -- > Malcolm Parsons > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
