[PATCH] Store warning option for custom diagnostic messages.
alexfh at google.com
Thu Jan 30 14:58:47 PST 2014
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/2014 18:29, Jordan Rose wrote:
>> Alp was trying to move away from getCustomDiagID, so you should
>> probably talk to him about this.
> Thanks for pinging Jordan, that's right.
> Alex, can you provide an example of how you intend to use this facility,
> say a patch making use of it with a test case to get the full picture?
One example of usage is in this patch:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2661 (the test is in
clang/tools/extra/test/clang-tidy/basic.cpp). Another usage may appear in
the static analyzer, if we go forward with the checker name forwarding. The
idea is, that both clang-tidy and the static analyzer have a concept of
named checks (or checkers), that can be enabled or disabled from the
command line. It is similar to built-in diagnostics in clang, except for
the difference in the option syntax (for clang-tidy it's -checks=<regex>
and -disable-checks=<regex> instead of -W[no-]diagnostic-name). It seems to
be reasonable to use something similar to getWarningOptionForDiag to pass
check names through the DiagnosticEngine. Currently this is not available
for custom diagnostics.
Both clang-tidy and the static analyzer use custom diagnostics, as they are
built optionally, and we can't statically generate diagnostics and make
clang pick them up in the way built-in diagnostics are handled.
Furthermore, we have plans for clang-tidy to support custom out-of-tree
check modules, which would make this even more complicated. So we have to
use custom diagnostics, and I propose adding making some features of
built-in diagnostics available for custom diagnostics (for now,
> There's a place for getCustomDiagID() so we wont phase it away entirely
> but I've got a feeling there might be a cleaner solution in this instance.
If you have a better idea, I'd be happy to discuss it.
> (As for the patch, there are a couple of nits. I'll provide an inline
> review if we do want to go with it.)
> the browser experts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits