Attempting to analyze templated code doesn't have a good cost-benefit ratio. We
have so far done a best-effort attempt at this, but maintaining this support has
an ongoing high maintenance cost because the AST for templates can violate a lot
of the invariants that otherwise hold for the AST of concrete code. As just one
example, in concrete code the operand of a UnaryOperator '*' is always a prvalue
(https://godbolt.org/z/s3e5xxMd1), but in templates this isn't true
(https://godbolt.org/z/6W9xxGvoM).
Further rationale for not analyzing templates:
* The semantics of a template itself are weakly defined; semantics can depend
strongly on the concrete template arguments. Analyzing the template itself (as
opposed to an instantiation) therefore has limited value.
* Analyzing templates requires a lot of special-case code that isn't necessary
for concrete code because dependent types are hard to deal with and the AST
violates invariants that otherwise hold for concrete code (see above).
* There's precedent in that neither Clang Static Analyzer nor the flow-sensitive
warnings in Clang (such as uninitialized variables) support analyzing
templates.
Reviewed By: gribozavr2, xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150352
1a42f79558