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

[Carlos Galvez via cfe-dev]

Thanks a lot for the quick response, let me know if you need anything.

Best regards,
Carlos

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 5:44 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20211217/a823842a/attachment.html>