aaron.ballman added a comment. In D69813#1736667 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1736667>, @Charusso wrote:
> 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. I wouldn't want to go with that approach because it confuses the names from the coding standard it's meant to check. I think a good policy is to try to keep the check names similar to the coding standard names whenever possible (regardless of the coding standard). > 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. Yes, the C++ rules incorporate some of the C rules, but not all of them, which kind of complicates things. The STR section happens to take everything from the C STR section. > 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. Understandable. > [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
