xazax.hun added inline comments.
================ Comment at: www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html:719 +<ul> +<li>User facing documentation is important for adoption! Make sure the check list updated + at the homepage of the analyzer. Also ensure that the description is good quality in ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > xazax.hun wrote: > > Szelethus wrote: > > > Make sure the **checker** list **is** updated > > I think at some point we should decide if we prefer the term check or > > checker to refer to these things :) Clang Tidy clearly prefers check. > That is the distinction I'm aware of too: checkers in the Static Analyzer, > checks in clang-tidy. My understanding is the following: we want users to use the term `check`, since that is more widespread and used by other (non-clang) tools as well. The term `checker` is something like a historical artifact in the developer community of the static analyzer. But if this is not the case, I am happy to change the terminology. But I do want to have some input from rest of the community too :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
