Closed Bug 1031310 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

remove xpcom/analysis/ directory

Categories

(Core :: XPCOM, defect)

defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla33

People

(Reporter: froydnj, Assigned: froydnj)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Dehydra is dead, and we have clang static analysis stuff to replace it.  No sense in keeping old code around, right?
Flags: needinfo?(benjamin)
The only thing I'm sorta-attached to in that directory is the autogenerated XPCOM string docs. But since they were coded against dekiwiki (which we don't use anymore) and dehydra (which doesn't work any more) I guess it doesn't make sense to just keep them around out of wishful nostalgia.
Flags: needinfo?(benjamin)
The type-printer.js file was even using E4X!
Attachment #8447221 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Attachment #8447221 - Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
This directory was actually *very* useful as a placeholder for stuff that we want to add to the clang plugin.  Is there really much value in removing it? :(
(In reply to :Ehsan Akhgari (lagging on bugmail, needinfo? me!) from comment #4)
> This directory was actually *very* useful as a placeholder for stuff that we
> want to add to the clang plugin.  Is there really much value in removing it?
> :(

Is there really much value in keeping it around vs. filing bugs on the analyses we'd like to have?
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/82c4c46374dd
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla33
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to :Ehsan Akhgari (lagging on bugmail, needinfo? me!) from comment
> #4)
> > This directory was actually *very* useful as a placeholder for stuff that we
> > want to add to the clang plugin.  Is there really much value in removing it?
> > :(
> 
> Is there really much value in keeping it around vs. filing bugs on the analyses
> we'd like to have?

Well, the latter is obviously much better!  :-)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.