[PATCH] [Analyzer] Individual options for checkers #2

[Gábor Horváth]

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7905#131369, @zaks.anna wrote:

> The model I was going for was simpler. A checker would be allowed to query options that are set on itself or a given package. For that, we would want to expose the string based APIs to the checkers. However, this solution is good as well and does have a benefit of being less error prone. The only downside that I see with this solution is that a checker will not be able to search options of other checkers/packages. Maybe it's fine to disallow that. What do you think?


Right now the only way to query a package option is to query an option that is not specified for a given checker. I think that is not a problem, because that way every package options can be overridden for a specific checker. I think that the lack of API to query an option of a specific package is not a big limitation either. Checkers that need common knowledge of an option tend to be end up in the same package anyways. However, when such API is required, it can be added.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7905#131369, @zaks.anna wrote:

> I would like to stay away from mentioning "inheritance" in these APIs.


Agreed.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D7905

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/