[PATCH] D36836: [clang-tidy] Implement readability-function-cognitive-complexity check

Fri Oct 2 12:18:00 PDT 2020

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D36836#2308981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2308981>, @lattner wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The LLVM foundation board discussed this offline -- it looks like the contributor is a bit confused about the LLVM project policies towards copyright, license, patent stuff etc.  I really appreciate the dilligence here to capture the ideas that went into this code.
>
> My understanding is that the code and documentation are not derived from anyone else's code or documentation -- they are fresh implementations based on a paper written in english prose.  If that is the case, please remove the LICENSE.TXT file -- it isn't necessary and it is confusing for people.    I would also recommend replacing all the references to sonar source with a functional description of what this patch is doing - we aren't talking about adding a feature because of sonar source, my understanding is that this is adding a cyclomatic complexity checker.  If and when the feature evolves over time, it would be misleading for it to be called sonar source.
>
> Please note that I didn't do a full code review here, others should do that.

Thank you to you and the board for looking into this and helping us reach the right decision!

In D36836#2309103 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2309103>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

>> please remove the LICENSE.TXT file -- it isn't necessary and it is confusing for people.    I would also recommend replacing all the references to sonar source with a functional description of what this patch is doing - we aren't talking about adding a feature because of sonar source,
>
> Done, as much as possible. I'd still prefer to maintain a reference to the spec on which it is based.
> Note that it was done because that is what was requested previously by reviewers.

I agree that we should still document that this is based off the Sonar Source paper because it's not a generic implementation but a specific one. I think you've struck a good balance with the current patch.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836