steakhal added a comment.
It looks good to me. But I'm leaving the approval up to the //tidy// folks.
BTW shouldn't we use //backticks// in the giant list?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cert/CERTTidyModule.cpp:45-50
+// The following functions are
+// deliberately excluded because they can
+// be called with NULL argument and in
+// this case the check is not applicable:
+// mblen, mbrlen, mbrtowc, mbtowc, wctomb,
+// wctomb_s
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Pretty sure this comment can be re-flowed to 80 columns. Also needs
> > trailing punctuation.
> Shouldn't we reuse `utils::options::serializeStringList` here instead of
> hardcoding the separator character into a giant literal? I know executing
> that operation has an associated run-time cost, and as it is not `constexpr`
> it needs to be done somewhere else, and `std::string` could throw so we can't
> do it at "static initialisation" time... But having those extra chars there
> just seems way too fragile at a later modification. We've had cases where
> people missed separating `,`s even -- and those are syntactically highlighted
> differently due to being outside the string literal.
>
> Suggestion:
>
> * An array of `StringRef`s or even `llvm::StringLiteral`s containing the
> individual function names. Array separated with `,`, the separator outside
> the literal. Aligned to column and probably one per line.
> * When using this variable later (🌟), instead of passing the stringref, pass
> the result of `serializeStringList`.
I think it looks good enough. We will certainly recognize if we change this
behavior and it would be easy to port these anyway. So I'm not too concerned
about this.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cert/CERTTidyModule.cpp:328
Opts["cert-str34-c.DiagnoseSignedUnsignedCharComparisons"] = "false";
+ Opts["cert-err33-c.CheckedFunctions"] = CertErr33CCheckedFunctions;
return Options;
----------------
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> balazske wrote:
> > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > Same here
> > This is correct: 'str34' before 'err33'.
> No, `e` goes before `s`. The existing checks are ordered: `dcl`, `oop`,
> `str`. So this check should go after `dcl16`.
+1 for fixing the order
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112409/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112409
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
