[cfe-dev] [clang-tidy][RFC] Add Autosar C++14 clang-tidy module?

[Tom Stellard via cfe-dev]

On 12/16/21 05:24, Carlos Galvez via cfe-dev wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> Do you have any updates on this topic? You have set a blocking review on my patch <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730> since more than one and a half months ago. I have asked about this in the patch itself and haven't got any reply yet. Looking forward to your feedback on what I can do to move forward with the patch.
> 

I don't have any updates, we are still trying to get in touch with
an attorney to get an answer.

-Tom

> Best regards,
> Carlos
> 
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:28 PM Carlos Galvez <carlosgalvezp at gmail.com <mailto:carlosgalvezp at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Got a reply from AUTOSAR. I posted in the patch as well but I think it has better visibility here, sorry for the spam!
> 
>         The AUTOSAR confidential statement states that these documents are considered under the license of AUTOSAR, thus a commercial usage without being a partner is not allowed.
> 
>         Since we had other similar requests already, I can state that this usage of the guidelines is uncritical from AUTOSAR’s perspective.
> 
> 
>     What do you think, should I ask anything else? Let me know if I should forward the mailing conversation to someone in case they need full details.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Carlos
> 
>     On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:53 PM Carlos Galvez <carlosgalvezp at gmail.com <mailto:carlosgalvezp at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>          > Effectively: "How do I obtain a copy of these rules without paying for them?"
> 
>         Could the LLVM Foundation purchase a copy for developers to consult? I guess one issue would be people signing up as developers just to get their hands on the MISRA document and avoid paying.
> 
>         Anyway I feel this thread is deviating a bit from the original scope (AUTOSAR). Would it make sense to open a separate thread for MISRA? Then it would more easily catch the eyes of MISRA members (like Chris above), and perhaps they might even comment on some of the issues we see. Otherwise I'm totally happy to continue the discussion here, it's just a suggestion for better visibility.
> 
>         /Carlos
> 
>         On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:39 PM Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
>             On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:09 AM Demi Marie Obenour via cfe-dev
>             <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>              >
>              > On 11/8/21 1:33 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote:
>              > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:15 PM Danny Mösch <accountdm at icloud.com <mailto:accountdm at icloud.com>> wrote:
>              > >>
>              > >> On 8. Nov 2021, at 14:56, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com <mailto:aaron at aaronballman.com>> wrote:
>              > >>> Licensing questions aside, one practical reason is because the MISRA
>              > >>> guidelines are not freely available, so it's basically impossible to
>              > >>> perform code reviews for such checkers unless you already own a copy
>              > >>> of MISRA. The rest of the community then has to take it on faith that
>              > >>> the check actually does what the MISRA rule says it should do because
>              > >>> they have no way to verify.
>              > >>
>              > >> What I conclude from that is that even if some people would work on a module for MISRA rules, the possibility is quite low that it will be accepted by the LLVM community for understandable reasons. Am I right about that?
>              > >
>              > > That's my take on it. As a code reviewer, I wouldn't be able to
>              > > validate the check against the rules it means to implement (at least,
>              > > not without some licensing-related questions that I wouldn't really
>              > > want to get involved with in the first place).
>              >
>              > What are those questions?
> 
>             Effectively: "How do I obtain a copy of these rules without paying for them?"
> 
>             ~Aaron
> 
>              >
>              > Sincerely,
>              > Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
>              > _______________________________________________
>              > cfe-dev mailing list
>              > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>              > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>             _______________________________________________
>             cfe-dev mailing list
>             cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>             https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>