Great, at least the users will not enable the debug checkers by accident!
We will check on the CodeChecker side if any configuration needs to be updated.

In D24040#530546, @mehdi_amini wrote:

This looks like a fairly large tool. Should it get its own "subproject level" directory in the SVN instead of being nested within clang?

I'd add that the clang-tools-extra are more closely tied to clang than what this seems to be. Is there a strong rev-lock with clang that I missed?

In D24040#530293, @rizsotto.mailinglist wrote:

Gyorgy and the ericsson team, thanks for doing this. very good job! good targeted functionality. i don't want to underestimate the complexity it requires, but to me this is a giant code. i do miss the explanation of the overall functional description what a module does and how it relates to other modules. i found a gap between the high level overview and the code comments.

I did not create a test checker for the NormalizeLine error in the patch.
Should I add a test checker for this? Do you have any suggestions
where to put it if required?

Some small format changes. Based on the review.

Regenerate patch with context and clang format HTMLDiagnostics.cpp.

Sorry for my late answer.
We fixed the plist parser for the CodeChecker it shoud process the
plist generated by the current trunk clang with the issue hash tags.

You are right the diff is is based on the hash. We already tried to
use an earlier hash generator (before the patch was introduced), which
generates a slightly different plist, that is why the current version
does not work with the patch.
We will fix CodeChecker to use new hash tag introduced in the final
patch (we did not change it so far because we didn't know what will be
the accepted naming convention and plist format).