Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[clangd] Disable crashy unchecked-optional-access tidy check #69427

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 19, 2023
Merged

[clangd] Disable crashy unchecked-optional-access tidy check #69427

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions clang-tools-extra/clangd/TidyProvider.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -219,6 +219,9 @@ TidyProvider disableUnusableChecks(llvm::ArrayRef<std::string> ExtraBadChecks) {
"-bugprone-use-after-move",
// Alias for bugprone-use-after-move.
"-hicpp-invalid-access-moved",
// Check uses dataflow analysis, which might hang/crash unexpectedly on
// incomplete code.
"-bugprone-unchecked-optional-access",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A consequence of putting the check here, is that a user who wants the check in spite of its bugginess does not have a way to enable it.

It was suggested, in clangd/clangd#1700 (comment) and clangd/clangd#1337 (comment), that we should have a way to allow users to override the disablements in this "bad checks" list. Could you weigh in on that proposal?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW, we had this check enabled internally before it was upstream'd and experience on incomplete code has always been problematic. Hence I don't see much point in letting people run this on an incomplete AST. I believe the recommended workflow should be through running clang-tidy binary directly. I'll add some comments on those threads too.

Copy link
Collaborator

@HighCommander4 HighCommander4 Oct 19, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. I commented in clangd/clangd#1337 (comment) about users maybe asking for an override in the future, but for now, avoiding the much more common case of users who don't care about this checker being burned by its brittleness is definitely the more pressing concern.


// ----- Performance problems -----

Expand Down