[PATCH] D26768: [analyzer] Improve VirtualCallChecker diagnostics and move out of alpha

[Anna Zaks via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

zaks.anna added a comment.

Not sure if we should make pure vs not an option so that users could turn the checking off. Is there a way to suppress the warning?



================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VirtualCallChecker.cpp:210
+  if (isPure)
+    os << "pure ";
+
----------------
Please, add an intra-procedual test case for pure in we don't have one already.


================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/VirtualCallChecker.cpp:212
+
+  os << "virtual function during construction or destruction ";
+
----------------
Can we detect if we are in a constructor or if we are in the destructor and make the error message more precise?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D26768