aaron.ballman added a comment. 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: "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. 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
