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.