[PATCH] D13368: [clang-tidy] add check cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-static-cast-downcast

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-commits]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> aaron.ballman added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13368#260672, @klimek wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13368#260669, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> > > This wasn't a comment on the rule so much as a comment on the
> diagnostic not being very helpful.In this case, you're telling the user to
> not do something, but it is unclear how the user would structure their code
> to silence this diagnostic. Perhaps there is no way to word this to give
> the user a clue, but we should at least try. If I got this diagnostic as it
> is now, I would scratch my head and quickly decide to ignore it.
> >
> >
> > The cpp core guidelines are written in a way that they should be
> referenceable by links - do we want to add links to the relevant portions
> of the core guidelines from the clang-tidy checks?
>
>
> I'd be hesitant to do that. It would add a lot of verbiage to diagnostics
> that are likely to be chatty, and if the links ever go dead mid-release
> cycle for us, we're stuck looking bad with no way to fix it. CERT's
> guidelines are also linkable in the same fashion (as would be hypothetical
> checks for MISRA, JSF, etc), and I would have the same hesitation for those
> as well due to the potential dead link issue.
>
> I think that having the links within the user-facing documentation is a
> must-have though (and something we've been pretty good about thus far)
> because those can be updated live from ToT. So perhaps a permanent short
> link to our own documentation might be useful (if a bit obtuse since our
> docs mostly just point to other docs elsewhere)? I'd still be a bit worried
> about expired short links or something, but maybe we already host a service
> for this sort of thing?


I'll postulate that a) github will not go away anytime soon and b) github
will have a hard time changing their link structure so linking into
revision N in branch M doesn't work any more.
Thus, I think if we link into the github release of the core guildelines,
we'll be fine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20151006/ef85f208/attachment.html>