aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/SpuriouslyWakeUpFunctionsCheck.cpp:60
+ .bind("wait"));
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ ifStmt(anyOf(
----------------
Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I think you can make two calls to
`addMatcher()`, one for the C check and one for the C++ check. Then you can
register only the matcher needed for the language mode you are currently in.
e.g.,
```
if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus)
// Check for CON54-CPP
else
// Check for CON36-C
```
This should make the check slightly more efficient because of the mutually
exclusive nature of these APIs without changing the behavior.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst:75
`bugprone-sizeof-expression <bugprone-sizeof-expression.html>`_, , "high"
+ `bugprone-spuriously-wake-up-functions
<bugprone-spuriously-wake-up-functions.html>`_, , ""
`bugprone-string-constructor <bugprone-string-constructor.html>`_, "Yes",
"high"
----------------
sylvestre.ledru wrote:
> Could you try to evaluate the severity? :)
> thanks
>
Given that these are essentially CERT rules, I'd go with the CERT severity for
them -- however, I say that only because I'm not certain what approach is
supposed to be taken for these severity markings.
CERT marks these two rules as having a low severity, FWIW.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70876/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70876
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
