Prazek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27815#625102, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I am really not keen on the name "obvious" for this module. What is obvious > to one person is not always obvious to another. Also, if the checks are > finding *obvious bugs*, then that suggests they should be implemented in the > clang frontend rather than a tool that is run less frequently. > > Since the checks are meant to be finding bugs rather than enforcing a coding > standard, performance, readability, etc, a few possible alternative names: > > `bugs-` > `correctness-` My intention is to have kind of bugs that you facepalm when you find it. Mostly simple typos. As I said this can't make it to clang because it would have some false positives. I am ok with making group like `bugs` that would have some checks that are curently in misc (misc-use-after-move), but still, this group would be special in the sense that it looks for very simple bugs that you can make during coding, but you won't be able to find it in code that seem to work. https://reviews.llvm.org/D27815 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
