Charusso added a comment.

In D69813#1735988 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1735988>, @aaron.ballman 
wrote:

> I'm not @NoQ, but I do agree that there should be a separate check per rule 
> in terms of the UI presented to the user. The name should follow the rule ID 
> like they do in clang-tidy, for some consistency there.
>  I think that the rule number should be in the name. I'd probably go with 
> `cert.STR31-C` or `cert.str31-c` (so it's clear which CERT standard the rule 
> came from).


We warmly welcome not (@NoQ)s! I think Artem really wanted to start this 
direction to make the two tool work together, but I have seen his project is 
unbelievably difficult so that it is a little-bit far away, sadly. Even we are 
far away to have multiple CERT rules in this package, if the Tidy users like 
the code-names, I cannot say no to start the collaboration with Tidy. I would 
pick `cert.str.31-c`, as @Szelethus pointed out we use lower-case words for 
package names and then we can run every `cert.str` checker at once.

Thanks for the ideas @Szelethus, @aaron.ballman!


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to