Re: clang static analyzer

The 06/12/09, Jeff King wrote:

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

quoted

quoted

  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. 

Me too. I have no idea about how clang works but if there are enough
work done to support such a tool in the code itself, it would be sad to
not share and promote this work. If Junio cares enough himself, he could
set up a public dedicated branch. Now if he doesn't, it's not necessary
at all. Tomas or anyone else with enough time and motivation can fork
the repository for this purpose.

The latter option would be good and appreciated by everybody here, I
think.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht