Prazek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729#646758, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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. I don't quite understand. Are you suggesting: - removing help text - adding cl::hidden What website are you talking about? >> >> >>> 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. I don't agree that alpha checkers are that bad. When I was testing it year ago there were only few false positives, probably in 2 checkers. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28729 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
