[PATCH] D62885: [analyzer] Add werror flag for analyzer warnings

[Keno Fischer via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

loladiro marked an inline comment as done.
loladiro added a comment.

> So, you'd like to make this a frontend flag in order not to expose it to "regular" end users? Or was it because, well, every other flag we have is a frontend flag?

Little bit of both? We already need to pass a bunch of `Xanalyzer` and `Xclang` features in order to set things up correctly and it seemed like a more prominent flag would cause more debate and delay in getting this in ;).

> For a project whose entire foundation is based on an estimation (I mean to refer to false positives), I fear that this flag would be impractical for most users. I certainly wouldn't like to receive an error on a false positive, but I can see that for your specific use, while on specific checkers are enabled, this would be fine. But again, do we really do this flag justice by "simply" making it a frontend flag?

Yeah, we're a bit of a special case here in that we consider false positives for our analysis a bug (in the analysis), so Werror makes more sense for us (since the analysis is also in the repo being CI'd).

> At the end of the day, the idea sounds great, and I'm not opposed to landing this before resolve this paradox.





================
Comment at: test/Analysis/override-werror.c:10
+  return p; // expected-warning{{incompatible pointer types}} \
+               werror-warning{{incompatible pointer types}}
 }
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Why isn't this `werror-error`?
Unlike the other error (which is generated by the analyzer), this is a semantic error (i.e. would get emitted even in the absence of the analyzer). The `-analyzer-werror` flag only touches those warnings generated by the analyzer, so this is the desired behavior.


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62885/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62885