steakhal wrote: > I handled all the inline comments. > > I have one minor architectural question: we should standardize a way to > assign a single tag description (that is, an identifier that can be used in > debug dumps) to each checker family. The old code automatically used the name > of the first checker part as the tag description (which was not very > elegant...); while in the current version of this patch subclasses of > `CheckerFamily<>` override `getTagDescription()` and return their class name > as a hardcoded string literal. I think this approach is acceptable, and if we > keep it then I'll add a comment in `CheckerFamily` which says that subclasses > must override `getTagDescription()` this way. However, I also feel that there > might be a better solution -- @steakhal what do you think?
I'll think about this, but overall I'd prefer simplicity for defining Checkers - which may make magic behind the doors slightly more involved. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139256 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
