xazax.hun added a comment. This might be a strange argument, but I did see this happen several times at different companies.
When a company tries to decide which lint tools to use they are doing an evaluation. Usually, people doing the evaluation are not compiler/static analysis devs. Given the information they have they often end up comparing the checks different tools have and do the checkbox game. So if their current tool does support some checks that the other tool does not they might have the fear of missing out and do not switch the new one. This methodology is, of course, flawed. They do not know the utility of each check, but they do not have the resources to do a proper comparison and they do not have the resources to support multiple tools. So one additional consideration might be, should clang tidy try to have appeal when those comparisons are made? We could argue on both sides. More users the better, since we can get more bug reports, contributors etc. But it might come with additional maintenance costs. If a check is very unlikely to have false positives, this cost might be low enough to worth it. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71001 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
