Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Eliminate "unknown" checker state #3949
Eliminate "unknown" checker state #3949
Changes from all commits
cbdfecc
f2949d2
2c5a326
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to this in this patch? Seems to be a new addition. If we must, we could at least emit a curtesy warning that this won't be enabled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a function which returns the available checkers. By this
if
statement this "checker" will not be displayed for the users, do they don't even know about the existence of it. They cant provide it in any analyzer command.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't explain my question. Can this not be a separate patch? If not, why is it justified here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I might have misunderstood, but in your original comment you suggested to provide a "courtesy warning" for the users which says that this checker/warning will not be enabled. That's why I answered that there is no need for such a warning, because CodeChecker users will not even know about the existence of this "checker" if we exclude it in this
get_checker_list()
function.And we have to exclude it, because otherwise an invalid
clang-tidy
invocation will be assembled:clang-tidy ... main.c -- -Wframe-larger-than=
. This is invalid, because this warning requires an integer parameter after=
. So this is why I decided to hide this checker/warning at all. If I don't exclude this warning then one of our tests fail which enable all "clang-diagnostic-" checkers:CodeChecker analyze -e clang-diagnostic ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This would be valid if CodeChecker was the entity that released this warning, but that is not the case, its perfectly reasonable for a Clang user to expect this warning to just work,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aha, I understand now that this function asks clang-tidy for the list of recognized checks, and removed this particular one, so it will act as if the requested didn't exist, resulting in a warning.
But not the right warning. It will say that the check doesn't exist, which is not true -- it does exist, we just don't don't allow running it under CodeChecker. Lets save the user some headache, his Clang binary is not broken -- please emit a warning about this.
warning: CodeChecker is incompatible with compiler warning 'frame-larger-than'. Please don't enable it.