lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52670#1268564, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52670#1268372, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52670#1268347, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52670#1268170, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > > > - Apply minor wording nits. > > > > - For `cert-dcl16-c`, **only** consider `L`, `LL` suffixes, not > > > > **anything** else (not even `llu`). > > > > > > > > > I'll find out about the DCL16-C recommendation, as I suspect the intent > > > is to cover `lu` and `llu` but not `ul` and `ull`. > > > > > > I agree, i've thought so too. > > > > That will open an interesting question: in `lu`, `l` should be upper-case. > > What about `u`? We can't keep it as-is. > > We will either consistently upper-case it, or consistently lower-case it. > > I.e. given `[lL][uU]`, should we *always* produce `Lu`, or `LU`? > > > I talked to someone at CERT responsible for maintaining DCL16-C to get their > opinion on tightening the wording of the rule and their stated intent is: Thank you! > "If the first character is 'ell', it should be capitalized. The other ells > need not be, and the yew's need not be capitalized either." > > e.g., > 11lu -> diagnose > 11ul -> fine > 11llu -> diagnose > 11lLu -> diagnose > 11Llu -> fine > 11ul -> fine > > That said, the author (and I) agree that it'd be perfectly okay to diagnose > things like `11Llu` and recommend `11LLU` as a replacement. Ok, nothing unexpected. So the full revised list is: "L;LL:LU;LLU". Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D52670 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
