Charusso added a comment. In D69813#1736611 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1736611>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Would it make sense to use `cert.str.31.c` to remove the random dash? Would > this also help the user to do something like `cert.str.*.cpp`? if they want > just the CERT C++ STR rules checked? Or can they do that already even with > the `-`? Well, we could introduce package `cert.str.c` and `cert.str.cpp` and then the rule-number follows: `cert.str.c.31` where the `31` is the name of the checker in this case, which sounds very strange. @Szelethus is the code owner of our frontend so I would wait how he imagine the layout. As I know to enable every C checker of the package `cert.str` we need to create a `c` package because we do not have such a logic to put `*` in the package name before the checker's name and the package `c` clarify what the user wants to do. Now I have checked your `cert.str.cpp` page [1] and I think the `cert.str.cpp` invocation could invoke the `cert.str.c` as a dependency, because the `c` rules apply to `cpp` as you have written. On the other hand we are trying to avoid larger scope changes than the necessary because we do not know when `cert.str.c` would contain at least two checkers. That is why I was so minimal and only introduced the package `cert` because we already have two `FLP` checkers inside the `insecureAPI` base-checker. [1] https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88046330 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
