[cfe-dev] Idea for better invoking static analysis via command line

[Craig, Ben via cfe-dev]

I'm all for this idea.  There is precedent for this in other tools 
(Visual Studio's /analyze).  I think it also greatly reduces the need 
for build interposition via scan-build.

I would ask that you think carefully about the output format of the 
detailed analysis for -enable-analyze-pass.  If people are using 
-enable-analyze-pass on most of their builds, then plist and html 
reports are likely to go unread for the most part.  Consider making "no 
detailed analysis" an option for -enable-analyze-pass to help with these 
use cases.

On 1/29/2016 9:04 PM, <Alexander G. Riccio> via cfe-dev wrote:
> As mentioned by myself, Aaron Ballman, and Philip Reames, in a reply 
> to "Proposal: Integrate static analysis test suites", the fact that 
> static analysis generates a totally different set of warnings than 
> compilation (not a superset), is surprising to some.
>
> One possibility, in order to preserve the current behavior for any 
> tools that rely on this, is to add an option to clang, something like 
> "-enable-analyze-pass" that the user can specify to run analysis AND 
> compilation.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Sincerely,
> Alexander Riccio
> --
> "Change the world or go home."
> about.me/ariccio <http://about.me/ariccio>
>
> <http://about.me/ariccio>
> If left to my own devices, I will build more.
> ⁂
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160202/a1cd8cc7/attachment.html>