Paul Fultz II

There appears to be merge conflicts for this PR.

Wont this lead to FNs for functions that don't throw? I would assume you would annotate the function with [[noreturn]] for functions that throw. That's what we do in cppcheck...

> If a function is not annotated and its definition is not seen, we cannot warn. Most definitions are not stored in the header files. Requiring to inline all functions...

> This is indeed a conundrum. Maybe this could be part of the configuration? Do you mean `` for library configurations? That doesn't seem to apply here. > You seem...

> Or should we require that our C++ users use [[noreturn]] / noexcept .. for C users we just bailout and avoid false positives. Well it would just be for...

We shouldn't be setting `18446744073709551615` to `-1` in the first place. Setting the value to `-1` and then trying to ignore it later because its incorrect, just seems to make...

I agree it's not consistent and I don't think it would be obvious to most developers what is being done.

Thanks, yea there shouldn't target be with a `/` in the name. I will look over the name of tests to make sure they are all correct.

Do you know how to run this tool with cmake? I can then integrate the cmake code into the build.

> It seems most of the targets are tests. I'm tempted to call out running tests by default as a bad practice because the target can't always be executed on...