whisperity added a comment. Should/does this work in C++ mode for `std::whatever`?
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cert/ObsolescentFunctionsCheck.cpp:48 + // Matching functions with safe replacements in annex K. + auto FunctionNamesWithAnnexKReplacementMatcher = hasAnyName( + "::asctime", "::ctime", "::fopen", "::freopen", "::bsearch", "::fprintf", ---------------- Is this ordering specific in any way? Is the rule listing them in this order? If not, can we have them listed alphabetically, for easier search and potential later change? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cert-msc24-c.rst:10 +For the listed functions, an alternative, more secure replacement is suggested, if available. +The checker heavily relies on the functions from annex K (Bounds-checking interfaces) of C11. + ---------------- (And consistent capitalisation later.) ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/cert-msc24-c.rst:29 +Both macros have to be defined to suggest replacement functions from annex K. `__STDC_LIB_EXT1__` is +defined by the library implementation, and `__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__` must be define to "1" by the user +before including any system headers. ---------------- CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
