[llvm-dev] Why negative to Clang Static Analyzer?

[翟翔 via llvm-dev]

Dear David,
Thanks for your kind response!
Yes, all have been pushed after code review, it is good example of clang static analyzer, but PR387298 is the bad example, never mind, I fixed it, and also passed static and sanitizer (dynamic) analysis.
I respect KDE and LLVM developers who take responsibility for their commit, and positive to analysis report patiently. I don’t care who is not...
End users need BUG free application, but not full of bugs trash, sorry for my Cleanliness.


发自我的iPad

------------------ Original ------------------
From: David Faure <faure at kde.org>
Date: 周六,12月 2,2017 16:23
To: Leslie Zhai <lesliezhai at llvm.org.cn>
Cc: pino <pino at kde.org>, scdbackup <scdbackup at gmx.net>, bugseforuns <bugseforuns at gmx.com>, k3b <k3b at kde.org>, llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, aacid <aacid at kde.org>
Subject: Re: Why negative to Clang Static Analyzer?



On samedi 2 décembre 2017 07:27:59 CET Leslie Zhai wrote:
> But why so *IMPATIENT* and *IRRESPONSIBLE* for your commit when clang
> static analyzer detected the root cause?! it hurts K3B endusers!
> 
> LLVM and KDE developers reviewed the code
> https://reviews.llvm.org/p/xiangzhai/ firstly, then it is able to push
> to the UPSTREAM repository if LGTM, but why broke the *POLICY*?!

Hello Leslie,

I'm afraid I don't understand your message.
The fixes linked from https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387298#c11
have all been pushed, no?
So who's impatient and irresponsible? What are you asking for exactly?
I don't get it.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE Frameworks 5
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171202/64ea4a96/attachment-0001.html>