NagyDonat wrote: > I'm somewhat unsatisfied, but it's not because of this PR. This is an > excellent way forward, I just wish we had a better abstraction.
I agree that the architecture that's being formalized by this commit is not perfect. If I would be reimplementing a static analyzer from zero, I would probably separate: - small "Reporter" classes which - have a user-facing name, - can be enabled/disabled by the user, - have `reportBug(...)` methods that produce a bug report if the Reporter is enabled; - implement unique logic (e.g. message formatting) that is only relevant for one sub-checker; - big "Modeler" classes which - own one or several (or perhaps zero) Reporters, - are active if any of their Reporters is enabled (or if some other Modeler depends on them), - implement various callbacks (`check::XXX`, `eval::Call` etc.) and update the `State` and call `MyReporter::reportBug(...)` methods from these callbacks; - implement the shared logic of a group of related Reporters (i.e. what is currently represented by a single multipart checker class). However, given the existing codebase I don't think that it's feasible to suddenly switch to an architecture like this. However, we could gradually approach this transition, e.g. if we gradually replace `CheckerNameRef` with a richer and more complex class that can become our `Reporter`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130985 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
