aaron.ballman requested changes to this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729#646560, @alexfh wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729#646555, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729#646548, @alexfh wrote: > > > > > As discussed with the Static Analyzer maintainers, alpha checkers are > > > completely unsupported and are suitable for very early testing only. We > > > had problems with them routinely, that's why I disabled alpha checkers in > > > clang-tidy completely. I don't think there should be a user-visible way > > > to enable them. Developers can locally change the code to get access to > > > alpha checkers, but released binaries shouldn't provide this possibility. > > > > > > That's good to know -- should it be documented a bit more explicitly, > > > Yes, a comment to that effect near the relevant code wouldn't hurt. Or do you > have other suggestions? A comment in the code would be okay, but I think that removing all public mention of the alpha checkers (help text and website) would also be useful; I would not have thought that a production compiler would carry these checks for this many years if they weren't stable and useful. > > >> or perhaps the alpha checks should be removed until they're fit for public >> consumption? Some of those alpha checks have been in the product for a long >> time, and if they're so unstable that we cannot expose them in a >> user-friendly fashion, perhaps they don't belong yet? > > As discussed with SA folks, alpha checkers are convenient for them to develop > new checks, but shouldn't be exposed to users. Some of these experimental > checkers might deserve being moved out of alpha or removed completely, but > that should be reported to and discussed with the SA maintainers. Agreed. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
