Related discussion on discourse: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-regarding-the-current-status-of-hicpp-checks
The main goal is to move all implementations of checks in hicpp module into other modules. Currently we can keep the initial check as alias then completely remove them later (If we have to do so due to legal problems)
Current naming suggestion
hicpp-exception-baseclass -> bugprone-exception-baseclasshicpp-ignored-remove-result -> bugprone-unused-return-valuehicpp-multiway-paths-covered -> readability-multiway-paths-coveredhicpp-signed-bitwise -> bugprone-signed-bitwisehicpp-no-assembler -> portability-no-assembler
I opened sub-issues using these check names, but they are just my personal opinion, will update when we get a better naming alternative :)
See any sub-issue in #157287 on how to do the refactor.
Related discussion on discourse: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-regarding-the-current-status-of-hicpp-checks
The main goal is to move all implementations of checks in
hicppmodule into other modules. Currently we can keep the initial check as alias then completely remove them later (If we have to do so due to legal problems)Current naming suggestion
hicpp-exception-baseclass->bugprone-exception-baseclasshicpp-ignored-remove-result->bugprone-unused-return-valuehicpp-multiway-paths-covered->readability-multiway-paths-coveredhicpp-signed-bitwise->bugprone-signed-bitwisehicpp-no-assembler->portability-no-assemblerI opened sub-issues using these check names, but they are just my personal opinion, will update when we get a better naming alternative :)
See any sub-issue in #157287 on how to do the refactor.