On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25/06/2014 14:06, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> How about just using -Wold-style-cast? >> >> >> I thought, it was agreed upon, that the -Wold-style-cast warning isn't >> going to suggest automatic fixes: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ >> pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131125/094121.html. However, this >> check is going to. >> >> Any other concerns? >> >> > Hmm, if this is identical to -Wold-style-cast why is it going into > clang-tidy/google/? > > There doesn't seem to be anything Google-specific at all here, any more > than the equivalent compiler flag in clang is Nuanti-specific.
Currently, we're trying to organize the checks by coding style to make it easy to select all checks from a certain style (using -checks=-*,google-* or -checks=-*,llvm-*). And from the two coding styles we are currently planning to support, only one specifically has the rule to avoid C-style casts. If the check didn't implement a rule of one of this styles, it would go misc/. We know that this system is sub-optimal, as categorization of the checks by style doesn't work well when checks can be shared between styles. A better approach could be to have checks arranged separately by some property (e.g. some characteristic of the issue they address - readability/performance/compatibility/bug-prone coding patterns), and the styles being just lists of checks with specific configurations and meta-data (e.g. links to specific style guide rules). We're going to do this kind of rearrangement, but it will be done independently from this patch.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
