[cfe-dev] clang-tidy checks for High integrity C++

[Jonathan Coe via cfe-dev]

On 24 January 2017 at 20:02, Jonathan Coe <jonathanbcoe at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 24 Jan 2017, at 19:14, David Tarditi <dtarditi at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Coe wrote “I did not see any restrictions on distribution of the
> PDF I got”.   Just to point out that there is a “Conditions of Use” at the
> end of the PDF (a rather unusual location).    It’s quite liberal:
>
>
>
> Conditions of Use
>
> You are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit) this complete work,
> or parts of this work, subject to
>
> attributing to PRQA as follows, “HIC++ Coding Standard as created by PRQA”
> (and you must not in any
>
> way suggest that PRQA endorses you or your use of this work).
>
>
>
> This is good to see because some other widely-used industry coding
> standards such as MISRA C require individual or corporate purchase of the
> documentation (see https://www.misra.org.uk/MISRAHome/MISRAC2012/tabid/
> 196/Default.aspx, for example).
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> Oops and thanks
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
> <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Coe via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 6:02 AM
> *To:* Ben Cox <cox at djehuti.com>
> *Cc:* Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] clang-tidy checks for High integrity C++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 January 2017 at 13:52, Ben Cox <cox at djehuti.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Jonathan Coe <jbcoe at me.com> wrote:
>
> Strong yes here, and might be able to devote some resources to helping
> with the effort.
>
> Are you interested in High-integrity C++ in particular or safety-critical
> checks in general?
>
>
>
> High-Integrity C++ in particular. (We'd want to customize the checks, of
> course, since our coding standard, while based on HIC++, has a few
> exceptions and differences from the "official" spec.)
>
>
>
>
>
> I've asked the owners of High Integrity C++ if we can use the name for a
> clang-tidy module. If they are not happy we can call it `safety` or
> `safetycritical` instead.
>
>
>
> -- Ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
Initial patch here https://reviews.llvm.org/D29118
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170125/5e77e407/attachment.html>