In that case, feel free to revert this. If around 11:00 CET time I tried to recommit with a possible fix (while watching your bots), would that be an issue?

Thu, May 16, 3:49 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added inline comments to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Thu, May 16, 3:33 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

If there's a cmake variable for fuchsia, Could you please try to add them here? (see inlines) I don't have access to that particular platform.

Thu, May 16, 3:33 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

In D59464#1505435, @phosek wrote:

In D59464#1505323, @Szelethus wrote:

I started to land other patches as well that depend on this one -- I won't object, but I'd prefer to find a solution, mostly because I don't even know how I could reproduce this error. The thing is, I merely moved some files from one directory to the other, which makes me scratch my head even more. That being said -- (see inlines)

Which other changes have been landed that depend on this one?

rC360910

Our builders always perform a clean build to avoid any dirty state from previous builds. Have you tried doing a clean build with your change?

Thu, May 16, 2:01 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Also, am I supposed to receive a mail from your buildbots? I unfortunately received none.

Thu, May 16, 1:02 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

In D59464#1505200, @phosek wrote:

All our bots are failing which seems to have been caused by the latest reland:

FAIL: Clang :: Analysis/checker-plugins.c (297 of 14793)
******************** TEST 'Clang :: Analysis/checker-plugins.c' FAILED ********************
Script:
--
: 'RUN: at line 1';   /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/bin/clang -cc1 -internal-isystem /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/lib/clang/9.0.0/include -nostdsysteminc -analyze -analyzer-constraints=range -verify /b/s/w/ir/k/llvm-project/clang/test/Analysis/checker-plugins.c    -load /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/./lib/SampleAnalyzerPlugin.so    -analyzer-checker='example.MainCallChecker'
: 'RUN: at line 15';   /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/bin/clang -cc1 -internal-isystem /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/lib/clang/9.0.0/include -nostdsysteminc -analyze -analyzer-constraints=range /b/s/w/ir/k/llvm-project/clang/test/Analysis/checker-plugins.c    -load /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/./lib/CheckerDependencyHandlingAnalyzerPlugin.so   -analyzer-checker=example.DependendentChecker    -analyzer-list-enabled-checkers    2>&1 | /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/bin/FileCheck /b/s/w/ir/k/llvm-project/clang/test/Analysis/checker-plugins.c -check-prefix=CHECK-IMPLICITLY-ENABLED
: 'RUN: at line 24';   /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/bin/clang -cc1 -internal-isystem /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/lib/clang/9.0.0/include -nostdsysteminc -analyze -analyzer-constraints=range /b/s/w/ir/k/llvm-project/clang/test/Analysis/checker-plugins.c    -load /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/./lib/CheckerDependencyHandlingAnalyzerPlugin.so   -analyzer-checker=example.DependendentChecker    -analyzer-disable-checker=example.Dependency    -analyzer-list-enabled-checkers    2>&1 | /b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/bin/FileCheck /b/s/w/ir/k/llvm-project/clang/test/Analysis/checker-plugins.c -check-prefix=CHECK-IMPLICITLY-DISABLED
--
Exit Code: 1

Command Output (stderr):
--
error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected: 
  (frontend): unable to load plugin '/b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/./lib/SampleAnalyzerPlugin.so': '/b/s/w/ir/k/recipe_cleanup/clangsCGbgY/llvm_build_dir/./lib/SampleAnalyzerPlugin.so: undefined symbol: _ZN4llvm14FoldingSetBase6anchorEv'

--

********************
Testing: 0 .. 10.. 20.. 30.. 40.. 50.. 60.. 70.. 80.. 90.. 
Testing Time: 77.86s
********************
Failing Tests (1):
    Clang :: Analysis/checker-plugins.c

Is it possible to revert this change again?

Thu, May 16, 12:51 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus committed rC360910: [analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling.

[analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling

Thu, May 16, 8:52 AM

Szelethus committed rL360910: [analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling.

[analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling

Thu, May 16, 8:52 AM

Szelethus closed D59465: [analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling.

Thu, May 16, 8:52 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus committed rC360891: Reland "[analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling".

Reland "[analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling"

Thu, May 16, 6:20 AM

Szelethus committed rL360891: Reland "[analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling".

Reland "[analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling"

Thu, May 16, 6:20 AM

Szelethus closed D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Thu, May 16, 6:19 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D61816: [CFG] [analyzer] pr41300: Add a branch to skip virtual base initializers when they are handled by the superclass..

Hmmm, how about this?

Thu, May 16, 5:17 AM · Restricted Project

Wed, May 15

Szelethus reopened D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Ugh. Reverted in rC360805. Buildbots don't seem to be able to find the new plugins.

Wed, May 15, 1:20 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus committed rL360805: Revert "[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies".

Revert "[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies"

Wed, May 15, 1:18 PM

Szelethus committed rC360805: Revert "[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies".

Revert "[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies"

Wed, May 15, 1:17 PM

Szelethus committed rC360799: [analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies.

[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies

Wed, May 15, 12:46 PM

Szelethus committed rL360799: [analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies.

[analyzer] Add a test for plugins using checker dependencies

Wed, May 15, 12:46 PM

Szelethus closed D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Wed, May 15, 12:46 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus committed rL360779: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

[clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone

Wed, May 15, 8:05 AM

Szelethus committed rCTE360779: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

[clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone

Wed, May 15, 8:05 AM

Szelethus closed D54757: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

Wed, May 15, 8:05 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D61816: [CFG] [analyzer] pr41300: Add a branch to skip virtual base initializers when they are handled by the superclass..

Exquisite detective work as always! I read a bit of the standard, your summary, the bugreport and the new test cases, and I feel confident that I have a good understanding of the problem and your solution, though I didn't dig through the details just yet. At a first glance this looks great, and I'll be sure to revisit this patch and accept it formally.

Wed, May 15, 6:47 AM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

In D57858#1502052, @NoQ wrote:

In D57858#1501065, @dkrupp wrote:

These are the alpha checkers that we are testing in Ericsson:

Hmm, if you don't mind i'll take this to cfe-dev, as it's an interesting topic :)

Wed, May 15, 2:25 AM · Restricted Project

Tue, May 14

Szelethus accepted D61815: [CFG] NFC: Modernize test/Analysis/initializers-cfg-output.cpp..

Tue, May 14, 1:40 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus accepted D61814: [CFG] NFC: Remove implicit conversion from CFGTerminator to Stmt *, make it a variant class instead..

LGTM!

Tue, May 14, 1:39 PM · Restricted Project

Mon, May 13

Szelethus accepted D61136: [Analyzer] Refactor begin and end symbol creation.

Mon, May 13, 3:38 PM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

In D57858#1500635, @NoQ wrote:

In D57858#1499996, @dkrupp wrote:

Some alpha checkers are considerably more mature than others and are quite usable. In our experience, there are some users who are keen to run these checkers on their code and report back any false positives to us. So in this sense these are not "developer only" checkers. So I think we should let the users list them, read their descriptions and try them out. Some of them will come back with useful feedback as to how to improve them further.

What are such checkers currently? Like, the ones that aren't clearly "missing limbs" and that have somebody happy to address feedback sent against them?

Mon, May 13, 3:31 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59465: [analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling.

Ping^2

Mon, May 13, 10:16 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Ping^3

Mon, May 13, 10:16 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus updated the summary of D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default.

Mon, May 13, 3:09 AM · Restricted Project

Sun, May 12

Szelethus updated the summary of D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default.

Sun, May 12, 4:44 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a parent revision for D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default: D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

Sun, May 12, 4:44 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus updated subscribers of D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

In D57858#1498640, @NoQ wrote:

So, like, the global picture is as follows. In our case the Driver (i.e., --analyze) is not much more user facing than frontend flags. It's still fairly unusable directly, as our Static Analyzer is generally not a command-line tool. The real user-facing stuff is the GUIs such as scan-build or CodeChecker. These GUIs decide themselves on what options they want to expose. For instance, you have a right to decide that CodeChecker shouldn't support the aggressive mode of the move-checker and don't expose it as an option in your GUI. In this sense it's not really useful to provide a centralized -help of all user-facing options.

But it sounds as if you want to change this situation and provide a single source of truth on what are the user-facing options. Particular GUIs can still ignore them, but you don't want to hardcode flags in CodeChecker, but instead you want to rely on clang to provide the list of supported options for you and, as a side effect, for scan-build users (if you also add a scan-build help flag). I'm totally in favor of crystallizing such list of user-facing flags, and this patch sounds like a good step in that direction, assuming that non-user-facing options are hidden.

Sun, May 12, 4:44 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a child revision for D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options: D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default.

Sun, May 12, 4:44 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus created D61839: [analyzer] Hide developer-only checker/package options by default.

Sun, May 12, 4:44 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

In D57858#1498651, @NoQ wrote:

Also, for CodeChecker purposes wouldn't you rather have a machine-readable dump?

Sun, May 12, 3:54 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus updated the diff for D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

Make the educated observation that the code for formatted output is duplicated for -analyzer-checker-help, -analyzer-config-help and this patch, reuse it via the new static function AnalyzerOptions::printFormattedEntry.
Remove the USAGE that suggested the use of the driver (did you mean to remove it entirely? Really, without reading test files, you'd never know how to use it)
Hide certain options by default, implemented in a followup patch.

Sun, May 12, 3:50 PM · Restricted Project

Mon, May 6

Szelethus added a comment to D59465: [analyzer] Add a test plugin for checker option handling.

Ping

Mon, May 6, 1:21 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D59464: [analyzer] Add an example plugin for checker dependency handling.

Ping^2

Mon, May 6, 1:21 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D57860: [analyzer] Validate checker option names and values.

Ping^4

Mon, May 6, 1:21 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D57858: [analyzer] Add a new frontend flag to display all checker options.

Ping^4

Mon, May 6, 1:21 AM · Restricted Project

Sun, May 5

Szelethus committed rL359998: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as….

[analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as…

Sun, May 5, 12:40 PM

Szelethus committed rC359998: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as….

[analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as…

Sun, May 5, 12:40 PM

Szelethus closed D61569: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as primitive..

Sun, May 5, 12:40 PM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a child revision for D61569: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as primitive.: D61570: [analyzer] PR41753: Include complex integer types in NonLoc::isCompoundType.

Sun, May 5, 8:58 AM · Restricted Project

Szelethus added a parent revision for D61570: [analyzer] PR41753: Include complex integer types in NonLoc::isCompoundType: D61569: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as primitive..

Sun, May 5, 8:58 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus created D61570: [analyzer] PR41753: Include complex integer types in NonLoc::isCompoundType.

Sun, May 5, 8:58 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus updated the diff for D61569: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as primitive..

Add a TODO:, since we actually don't emit a warning when we should -- I'm afraid that this won't be an easy fix though, similarly to `__vector_size__`: D61246#inline-543357.

Sun, May 5, 8:41 AM · Restricted Project

Szelethus created D61569: [analyzer][UninitializedObjectChecker] PR41741: Regard all scalar types as primitive..

Sun, May 5, 8:35 AM · Restricted Project

Fri, May 3

Szelethus requested review of D54757: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

I changed the testfiles quite a bit, surprisingly, I'd appreciate another accept on this one please :) Seems to me that the changes describe the actual reports far better...

Fri, May 3, 8:57 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus updated the diff for D54757: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

FIx the above mentioned crash.

Fri, May 3, 8:52 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D54757: [clang-tidy] new check: bugprone-branch-clone.

$ cat orig.cpp
#define a(b) switch (b) {
#define c(b) \
b:
int d;
e() {
a(d) c(2);
c(3)

$ debugBuild/bin/clang-tidy orig.cpp -checks=bugprone-branch-clone --
clang-tidy: ../extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:200: clang::DiagnosticBuilder clang::tidy::ClangTidyContext::diag(llvm::StringRef, clang::SourceLocation, llvm::StringRef, DiagnosticIDs::Level): Assertion `Loc.isValid()' failed.
#0 0x00007f263c30ee79 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&) debugBuild/../llvm/lib/Support/Unix/Signals.inc:494:11 #1 0x00007f263c30f029 PrintStackTraceSignalHandler(void*) debugBuild/../llvm/lib/Support/Unix/Signals.inc:558:1
#2 0x00007f263c30d936 llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() debugBuild/../llvm/lib/Support/Signals.cpp:67:5 
#3 0x00007f263c30f6db SignalHandler(int) debugBuild/../llvm/lib/Support/Unix/Signals.inc:357:1 #4 0x00007f263bd64890 __restore_rt (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0+0x12890)
#5 0x00007f2637aefe97 gsignal /build/glibc-OTsEL5/glibc-2.27/signal/../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:51:0 
#6 0x00007f2637af1801 abort /build/glibc-OTsEL5/glibc-2.27/stdlib/abort.c:81:0 
#7 0x00007f2637ae139a __assert_fail_base /build/glibc-OTsEL5/glibc-2.27/assert/assert.c:89:0 
#8 0x00007f2637ae1412 (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x30412) 
#9 0x00007f263a64c623 clang::tidy::ClangTidyContext::diag(llvm::StringRef, clang::SourceLocation, llvm::StringRef, clang::DiagnosticIDs::Level) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/Cl
angTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:201:17 #10 0x00007f263a647baf clang::tidy::ClangTidyCheck::diag(clang::SourceLocation, llvm::StringRef, clang::DiagnosticIDs::Level) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyCheck.cpp:23
:3 #11 0x00007f263a28671e clang::tidy::bugprone::BranchCloneCheck::check(clang::ast_matchers::MatchFinder::MatchResult const&) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/BranchCloneCheck.cpp:200:9 
#12 0x00007f263a647be9 clang::tidy::ClangTidyCheck::run(clang::ast_matchers::MatchFinder::MatchResult const&) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyCheck.cpp:31:1 #13 0x00007f263ae60174 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::MatchVisitor::visitMatch(clang::ast_matchers::BoundNodes const&) debugBuild/../clang
/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:742:7 
#14 0x00007f263af4e699 clang::ast_matchers::internal::BoundNodesTreeBuilder::visitMatches(clang::ast_matchers::internal::BoundNodesTreeBuilder::Visitor*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/
ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersInternal.cpp:75:5 #15 0x00007f263ae5fe66 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::matchWithFilter(clang::ast_type_traits::DynTypedNode const&) debugBuild/../clang/lib
/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:574:7 
#16 0x00007f263ae601c5 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::matchDispatch(clang::Stmt const*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder
.cpp:597:5
#17 0x00007f263ae5fa7d void clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::match<clang::Stmt>(clang::Stmt const&) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:499:3
#18 0x00007f263ae6dedd clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::TraverseStmt(clang::Stmt*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PointerIntPair<clang::Stmt*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<clang::Stmt*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*> > > >*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:868:48
#19 0x00007f263ae904b5 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseCompoundStmt(clang::CompoundStmt*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PointerIntPair<clang::Stmt*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<clang::Stmt*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*> > > >*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2175:1
#20 0x00007f263ae806a2 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::dataTraverseNode(clang::Stmt*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PointerIntPair<clang::Stmt*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<clang::Stmt*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*> > > >*) debugBuild/tools/clang/include/clang/AST/StmtNodes.inc:73:1
#21 0x00007f263ae7c95e clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseStmt(clang::Stmt*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PointerIntPair<clang::Stmt*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<clang::Stmt*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*> > > >*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:655:7
#22 0x00007f263ae6def9 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::TraverseStmt(clang::Stmt*, llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::PointerIntPair<clang::Stmt*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<clang::Stmt*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<clang::Stmt*> > > >*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:868:3
#23 0x00007f263aeb71ca clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseFunctionHelper(clang::FunctionDecl*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2020:5
#24 0x00007f263ae677be clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseFunctionDecl(clang::FunctionDecl*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:2025:1
#25 0x00007f263ae61df3 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseDecl(clang::Decl*) debugBuild/tools/clang/include/clang/AST/DeclNodes.inc:389:1
#26 0x00007f263ae61281 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::TraverseDecl(clang::Decl*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:860:3
#27 0x00007f263ae6dc58 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseDeclContextHelper(clang::DeclContext*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1387:7
#28 0x00007f263ae6a3a8 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseTranslationUnitDecl(clang::TranslationUnitDecl*) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:1479:1
#29 0x00007f263ae623f6 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseDecl(clang::Decl*) debugBuild/tools/clang/include/clang/AST/DeclNodes.inc:571:1
#30 0x00007f263ae61281 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor::TraverseDecl(clang::Decl*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:860:3
#31 0x00007f263adf7e73 clang::RecursiveASTVisitor<clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTVisitor>::TraverseAST(clang::ASTContext&) debugBuild/../clang/include/clang/AST/RecursiveASTVisitor.h:183:11
#32 0x00007f263adf7c8d clang::ast_matchers::MatchFinder::matchAST(clang::ASTContext&) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:1037:11
#33 0x00007f263ae60d05 clang::ast_matchers::internal::(anonymous namespace)::MatchASTConsumer::HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext&) debugBuild/../clang/lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:930:3
#34 0x00007f263608220b clang::MultiplexConsumer::HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext&) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Frontend/MultiplexConsumer.cpp:291:23
#35 0x00007f263253655e clang::ParseAST(clang::Sema&, bool, bool) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Parse/ParseAST.cpp:178:12
#36 0x00007f26360432c2 clang::ASTFrontendAction::ExecuteAction() debugBuild/../clang/lib/Frontend/FrontendAction.cpp:1037:1
#37 0x00007f2636042ce0 clang::FrontendAction::Execute() debugBuild/../clang/lib/Frontend/FrontendAction.cpp:938:7
#38 0x00007f2635fbf6ae clang::CompilerInstance::ExecuteAction(clang::FrontendAction&) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp:945:7
#39 0x00007f2638998382 clang::tooling::FrontendActionFactory::runInvocation(std::shared_ptr<clang::CompilerInvocation>, clang::FileManager*, std::shared_ptr<clang::PCHContainerOperations>, clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:369:14
#40 0x00007f263a5f48d1 clang::tidy::runClangTidy(clang::tidy::ClangTidyContext&, clang::tooling::CompilationDatabase const&, llvm::ArrayRef<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::OverlayFileSystem>, bool, llvm::StringRef)::ActionFactory::runInvocation(std::shared_ptr<clang::CompilerInvocation>, clang::FileManager*, std::shared_ptr<clang::PCHContainerOperations>, clang::DiagnosticConsumer*) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:540:7
#41 0x00007f2638998218 clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::runInvocation(char const*, clang::driver::Compilation*, std::shared_ptr<clang::CompilerInvocation>, std::shared_ptr<clang::PCHContainerOperations>) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:344:3
#42 0x00007f2638997385 clang::tooling::ToolInvocation::run() debugBuild/../clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:329:3
#43 0x00007f2638999577 clang::tooling::ClangTool::run(clang::tooling::ToolAction*) debugBuild/../clang/lib/Tooling/Tooling.cpp:518:11
#44 0x00007f263a5f283a clang::tidy::runClangTidy(clang::tidy::ClangTidyContext&, clang::tooling::CompilationDatabase const&, llvm::ArrayRef<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, llvm::IntrusiveRefCntPtr<llvm::vfs::OverlayFileSystem>, bool, llvm::StringRef) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:562:23
#45 0x0000000000243db8 clang::tidy::clangTidyMain(int, char const**) debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:430:7
#46 0x0000000000243342 main debugBuild/../extra/clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:491:3
#47 0x00007f2637ad2b97 __libc_start_main /build/glibc-OTsEL5/glibc-2.27/csu/../csu/libc-start.c:344:0
#48 0x000000000024302a _start (debugBuild/bin/clang-tidy+0x24302a)

Fri, May 3, 2:50 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project

Szelethus added a comment to D60925: [analyzer] Don't display implementation checkers under -analyzer-checker-help, but do under the new flag -analyzer-checker-help-hidden.

In D60925#1489034, @o.gyorgy wrote:

Great, at least the users will not enable the debug checkers by accident!
We will check on the CodeChecker side if any configuration needs to be updated.

LGTM

Fri, May 3, 1:39 AM · Restricted Project, Restricted Project