[PATCH] D64274: [analyzer] VirtualCallChecker overhaul.

[Kristóf Umann via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Szelethus added a comment.

In D64274#1574118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1574118>, @NoQ wrote:

> Mmm, no, not really; it seems that if i introduce a checker dependency, i also have to put the option onto the base checker, otherwise the checker name wouldn't match when i do `getCheckerBooleanOption(getChecker<VirtualCallChecker>(), "PureOnly")`. Which means that the option name will inevitably change. @Szelethus, do i understand this correctly?


I don't think it would change, the only "problem" would be that the *checker object's* name would be `cplusplus.PureVirtualCall`. You can still however invoke `getChecker*Option` by passing the `optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall` name as the first argument, which you can retrieve through `CheckerManager::getCurrentCheckName` (?).

In D64274#1574086 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1574086>, @NoQ wrote:

> Hmm, wait, i don't really break backwards compatibility. Fridays...




> Previously we have impure-checking when we enable the optin checker and pureonly-checking when we disable the option.
> 
> I can easily bring back the option, only for the purposes of backwards compatibility, so that it was turning off impure-checking.
> 
> In this case we'll still have impure-checking when we enable the optin checker and pureonly-checking when we disable the option. The only difference is that pureonly-checking is now going to be on by default.

I think we could just remove the option altogether. I'll take a second look on CodeCheckers side, but im reasonably sure we dont use it.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274