aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086627, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086493, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for > > the common user -- it's that they're simply not ready for users at all. > > Making it easier to expose does not seem like it serves users because those > > users expect exposed features to work. > > > That was also the sentiment static analyzer folks were voicing at some point. > I also sympathize to the idea of testing checks and contributing fixes to > them, but what the CSA maintainers seem to dislike is a stream of bugs for > alpha checkers from users expecting of a certain level of support. So it's > basically their decision whether they want to expose alpha checkers via clang > frontend and/or via clang-tidy. I can only say whether I like the specific > way it is done in clang-tidy. If the static analyzer people desire this feature, that would sway my position on it, but it sounds like they're hesitant as well. However, I don't think clang-tidy is beholden either -- if we don't think this functionality should be exposed and can justify that position, that should carry weight as well. From a policy perspective, I would be fine with a policy for clang-tidy where we never expose an alpha checker from the static analyzer (or only expose checks on a case by case basis) because I don't mind users having to jump through hoops to get to experimental, unsupported functionality. As for the way this is surfaced in clang-tidy, I'm also not keen on it but I don't have an improved suggestion to make yet. I primarily don't like the fact that, as a user, I enable checks by name but for some kinds of checks I have to *also* enable them via a secondary mechanism otherwise the name doesn't even exist. This strikes me as being a likely source of confusion where forgetting one flag causes behavioral differences the user doesn't expect. >> Making the flag sound scary doesn't suffice -- many users never see the >> flags because they're hidden away in a build script, but they definitely see >> the diagnostics and file bug reports. > > "We've fixed the glitch" by making everyone wanting a bugzilla account send > an email to a human. So only the users who pass this sort of a Turing test > will file bugs ;) Which is an even worse user experience. https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
