vingeldal added a comment. In D71963#1799956 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963#1799956>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I may have missed this in prior discussions, and if so, I'm sorry -- but why > are we taking CodeChecker as the model for this? I'm not opposed to having > some notion of severity for our checks (basically every tool and many coding > standards have the same concept), but I am not certain why we would say > CodeChecker's way is the way we want clang-tidy to progress. Also, does this > tie in with the clang static analyzer checks, or is the severity stuff only > for clang-tidy? Same thoughts here. In my opinion it would be preferable if Clang tidy doesn't make any promises about being aligned with CodeChecker severity levels. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
