Re: [C++] Coding rule enforcement

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>]

On 09/21/15 12:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
>> <daniel.gutson@tallertechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
>>> checkers as plugins for our customers). I understand Nathan that you
>>> may have some deadlines, but if we could have the opportunity to
>>> implement it, we could accomplish a clean isolation of a particular
>>> business needs (despite I acknowledge that a warning about virtual
>>> inheritance may be useful for a broader audience). OTOH, a plugin can
>>> receive arguments, such as a configuration file which could point to
>>> specific sources or hints about where to apply the warning, or a
>>> suppression file, both things useful for large legacy code. IMVHO I
>>> think this is a superior solution.
>>> Please let me know if we could collaborate to get both a better gcc
>>> and a better static checker.
>>
>> My opinion is that if people want to "donate" their plugins to the
>> FSF, they are willing to maintain them, and they are not overtly
>> complex or require any third-party software, they should be added to
>> the GCC repository and build/tested. They could serve as examples and
>> extra testing for the plugin framework, with the expectation that they
>> may get removed if they become unmaintained.
>
> Absolutely.

I've no objection to going the plugin way, but I'm extremely unlikely to be able 
to devote time to doing that in the foreseeable future.

nathan