[PATCH] D91000: [clang-tidy] Add bugprone-unsafe-functions checker.

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D91000#3770071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000#3770071>, @whisperity wrote:

> Generally LGTM. Please revisit the documentation and let's fix the style, and then we can land.
>
> In D91000#3197851 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000#3197851>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
>> In terms of whether we should expose the check in C++: I think we shouldn't. [...]
>>
>> I think we should probably also not enable the check when the user compiles in C99 or earlier mode, because there is no Annex K available to provide replacement functions.
>
> @aaron.ballman I think the current version of the check satisfies these conditions. It seems the check **will** run for every TU, but in case there is no alternative the check could suggest, it will do nothing:
>
>   if (!ReplacementFunctionName)
>     return;
>
> Is this good enough? This seems more future-proof than juggling the `LangOpts` instance in yet another member function.

My concern with that approach was that we pay the full expense of doing the matches only get get into the `check()` function to bail out on all the Annex K functions, but now that there are replacements outside of Annex K, I don't see a way around paying that expense, so I think my concern has been addressed as well as it could have been.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D91000