[PATCH] D52984: [analyzer] Checker reviewer's checklist

[Umann Kristóf via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Szelethus added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984#1294258, @NoQ wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984#1294233, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > Personally, I think it's detrimental to the community for subprojects to come up with their own coding guidelines. My preference is for the static analyzer to come more in line with the rest of the project (over time, organically) in terms of style, terminology, diagnostic wording, etc. However, if the consensus is that we want a separate coding standard, I think it should be explicitly documented somewhere public and then maintained as part of the project.
>
>
> I tihnk it's mostly conventions of using Analyzer-specific APIs, eg. avoid `addTransition()` hell - i guess we already have that, or how to register custom immutable maps, or how to implement checker dependencies or inter-checker APIs, or how much do we want to split modeling and checking into separate checkers, stuff like that.


Indeed, I don't mean to change anything about the LLVM coding guideline, just add a couple Static Analyzer specific additional restrictions.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984