From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128987 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2015 16:39:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 128975 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2015 16:39:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qk0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f178.google.com) (209.85.220.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:39:48 +0000 Received: by qkap81 with SMTP id p81so47275946qka.2 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.55.16.74 with SMTP id a71mr24049126qkh.65.1442853586873; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c000:c497:a2a8:cdff:fe3e:b48? ([2601:181:c000:c497:a2a8:cdff:fe3e:b48]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm10151432qhs.8.2015.09.21.09.39.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [C++] Coding rule enforcement To: Jason Merrill , =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOhw7Fleg==?= , Daniel Gutson References: <55F816F2.5010209@acm.org> <55F85357.5000101@gmail.com> <55F8640B.4060804@redhat.com> <56002EE5.1080304@redhat.com> Cc: Richard Biener , GCC Patches , David Malcolm From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <560032D1.8050901@acm.org> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56002EE5.1080304@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01593.txt.bz2 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 >> 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