[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

aaron.ballman added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:4747-4748 +The ``suppress`` attribute can be applied to variable declarations and statements +to suppess warnings from the Clang Static Analyzer. The analyzer will not report +any issues on t

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko added a comment. @aaron.ballman a gentle ping Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org h

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko added a comment. Finally I had a chance to come back to this patch. @aaron.ballman what do you think about it? I tried to address your notes and implemented both features under one attribute. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko updated this revision to Diff 367788. vsavchenko added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: manas. Join 'suppress' and 'analyzer_suppress' attributes. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D93110#2560095 , @vsavchenko wrote: > In D93110#2534690 , @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D93110#2529917 , @NoQ wrote: >> What I want

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko added a comment. In D93110#2534690 , @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D93110#2529917 , @NoQ wrote: > >>> What I want to avoid is having a static analyzer-specific suppression >>> attribute, and a different on

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D93110#2529917 , @NoQ wrote: >> What I want to avoid is having a static analyzer-specific suppression >> attribute, and a different one for clang-tidy, and a third one for the >> frontend. > > Given that there are alread

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugSuppression.cpp:70 + +class CacheInitializer : public RecursiveASTVisitor { +public: NoQ wrote: > vsavchenko wrote: > > NoQ wrote: > > > A recursive visitor would cause you to visit ne

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

NoQ added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/BugReporter/BugSuppression.h:30-31 +public: + /// Return true if the given bug report was explicitly suppressed by the user. + bool isSuppressed(const BugReport &); + /// Return true if the bug re

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko added inline comments. Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:2396 + let Args = [VariadicStringArgument<"DiagnosticIdentifiers">]; + let Subjects = SubjectList<[Var]>; + let Documentation = [AnalyzerSuppressDocs]; NoQ wrote: > [evil mode] > W

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

vsavchenko updated this revision to Diff 320068. vsavchenko added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: jdoerfert. Fix failing tests Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93110 Files: clang/include/cl

[PATCH] D93110: [analyzer] Implement fine-grained suppressions via attributes

NoQ added a comment. > What I want to avoid is having a static analyzer-specific suppression > attribute, and a different one for clang-tidy, and a third one for the > frontend. Given that there are already multiple suppression mechanisms circulating around (clang-tidy's `// NOLINT`, frontend