[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D91000#2469898 , @lebedev.ri wrote: > I think the question is, *why* are these checks being implemented? > Just to claim that for some particular rule there is a check, and cross it > off a list? > Or for them to be

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

steakhal added a comment. In D91000#2469898 , @lebedev.ri wrote: > I think the question is, *why* are these checks being implemented? > Just to claim that for some particular rule there is a check, and cross it > off a list? Initially, yes. I think one

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

lebedev.ri added a comment. In D91000#2469894 , @steakhal wrote: > In D91000#2469884 , @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> In D91000#2469880 , @steakhal wrote: >> >>> In

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

steakhal added a comment. In D91000#2469884 , @lebedev.ri wrote: > In D91000#2469880 , @steakhal wrote: > >> In D91000#2465514 , @ktomi996 wrote: >> >>> In D91000#2382562

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

lebedev.ri added a comment. In D91000#2469880 , @steakhal wrote: > In D91000#2465514 , @ktomi996 wrote: > >> In D91000#2382562 , @steakhal wrote: >> >>> Quoting the revision

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

steakhal requested changes to this revision. steakhal added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. In D91000#2465514 , @ktomi996 wrote: > In D91000#2382562 , @steakhal wrote: > >> Quoting the

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

ktomi996 added a comment. In D91000#2382562 , @steakhal wrote: > Quoting the revision summary: > >> This checker guards against using some vulnerable C functions which are >> mentioned in MSC24-C in obsolescent functions table. > > Why don't we check the

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

steakhal added a comment. Quoting the revision summary: > This checker guards against using some vulnerable C functions which are > mentioned in MSC24-C in obsolescent functions table. Why don't we check the rest of the functions as well? `asctime`, `atof`, `atoi`, `atol`, `atoll`, `ctime`,

[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] CERT MSC24-C Obsolescent Functions check

Eugene.Zelenko added inline comments. Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/cert/ObsolescentFunctionsCheck.cpp:19 +namespace { +static Preprocessor *PP; +} Why this could not be member of check class? Comment at: