[PATCH] D64274: [analyzer] VirtualCallChecker overhaul.

Tue Jul 23 17:07:54 PDT 2019

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

In D64274#1586282 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274#1586282>, @Szelethus wrote:

> //Ackchyually//,  it doesn't per se break anything, but will result in CodeChecker no longer enabling `optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall` :^) Sorry, oversight on my end. Observe the following monster of a clang invocation...

Mmm. Aha. Ok, i can reproduce your problem, but i don't think reversing the dependencies is gonna work. If we make the pure checker depend on the optin checker, we would always have the opt-in checker registered first, and therefore there's no way to figure out if we really wanted to opt in into the optin checker or we are simply loading it as a dependency. Which, in particular, makes it impossible to discriminate between `-analyzer-checker cplusplus.PureVirtualCall` and `-analyzer-checker optin.cplusplus.VirtualCall` when the option is unset: in both cases we'll first register the opt-in checker and then the pure checker.

I'm confused though; the way i was previously understanding your work, when disabling a dependency and then enabling a dependent checker *later* in the run-line, it should re-enable the dependency automatically. Did you consciously decide not to implement it that way?

================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/Checkers.td:569
                   "false",
-                  Released>
+                  InAlpha>
   ]>,
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Lets hide it as well.
> 
> ```
>     CmdLineOption<Boolean,
>                   "PureOnly",
>                   "Disables the checker. Keeps cplusplus.PureVirtualCall "
>                   "enabled. This option is only provided for backwards "
>                   "compatibility.",
>                   "false",
>                   InAlpha,
>                   Hide>
> ```
Yup!

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64274