aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984#1294223, @xazax.hun wrote:
> - Move the checklist up before additional info in the HTML file. > - Fix minor nits. > - Add missing bullet points (thanks @Szelethus for noticing) > > I did not add any coding convention related item yet. I wonder if it is a > good idea to have our own coding guidelines even if it is derived from the > LLVM one. Personally, I think it's detrimental to the community for subprojects to come up with their own coding guidelines. My preference is for the static analyzer to come more in line with the rest of the project (over time, organically) in terms of style, terminology, diagnostic wording, etc. However, if the consensus is that we want a separate coding standard, I think it should be explicitly documented somewhere public and then maintained as part of the project. ================ 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 ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > 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 :) I grew up with the term "checker", but I feel like "check" may have won the war. I don't have a strong opinion here though. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
