Re: clang static analyzer

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 10:39:56AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> >   2. If it is a false positive, see what it would take to silence clang
> >      and submit a patch.  I don't think we are opposed to annotations
> >      that help analysis tools as long as those annotations aren't too
> >      intrusive or make the code less readable.
> 
> I'm a bit skeptical here.  Going down that route might mean that we'll 
> eventually have to add all sort of crap to accommodate everyone's 
> preferred static analysis tool of the day.  Would be far nicer to try to 
> make those tools more intelligent instead, or at least make them 
> understand an out-of-line annotation format that does not clutter the 
> code itself.

To be clear, I am a bit skeptical, too. I would really prefer an
out-of-line annotation if one is available. But I am trying to encourage
the OP to actually make a patch for one instance so we can see just what
it would look like. Then we actually have a data point to discuss.

-Peff