dcoughlin added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40809#954890, @NoQ wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40809#954858, @dcoughlin wrote: > > > One possibility is to turn this into a debug checker similar to > > debug.ViewExplodedGraph. That checker registers for a checkEndAnalysis() > > callback and traverses the node graph (see DebugCheckers.cpp). Can you do > > the same here? It doesn't look like you really need this to be a > > BugReporterVisitor -- and making it a debug checker would avoid outputting > > multiple copies for each diagnostic consumer. > > > These prints are only for actual bugs, not for the whole graph. Even if we > identify error nodes in the final graph, we're unlikely to identify which of > them are suppressed by visitors. As it stands, this is a debugging tool not a way to communicate error paths to end users. (I think that, too, would be very helpful but I'd like to see this as a debugging aid first.) The workflow for debugging would be more like viewing the exploded graph than (say) emitting html diagnostics. My point is this: this is valuable as a debugging tool, we should get it committed as such. We can work on making it user facing separately. https://reviews.llvm.org/D40809 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
