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

[Carlos Galvez via cfe-dev]

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>
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> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:09 AM Demi Marie Obenour via cfe-dev
>> <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>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On 8. Nov 2021, at 14:56, Aaron Ballman <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
>> > 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/20211116/d550e21b/attachment.html>