[cfe-dev] [analyzer] Refactoring AnalyzerOptions

Kristóf Umann via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 30 07:43:07 PDT 2018

The biggest complication is the existence of external plugins. What are
your feelings on the second solution I proposed? Whether I use a .def file
or a .td file makes little difference to me at the moment, that's something
I can always change, if I have a lot of free time and more then 3-4
handfuls of hair.

Kristóf Umann <dkszelethus at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 29., H,

> Actually, I already have a fork on which I managed to get this info into
> Checkers.td (and have come to the same conclusion about tblgen being
> difficult to manage).
> Hashtags sound awesome, but I'll probably be burnt out with options by the
> time I finish the already planned changes.
> On 29 Oct 2018 19:39, "Artem Dergachev" <noqnoqneo at gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think about refactoring Checkers.td into a .def-file and
> listing checker options there? Eg.,
>     CHECKER(Malloc, core,
>         "Check for memory leaks, double free, and use-after-free
> problems.")
>     OPTION(Malloc, Optimistic, bool, false,
>         "A useless option that needs to be removed.")
>     CHECKER(PthreadLock, alpha.unix,
>         "Simple lock -> unlock checker"
> We could also de-duplicate packages (though i don't think that's
> necessary, as it's a matter of simple string prefix comparison):
>     BEGIN_PACKAGE(unix, alpha)
>         CHECKER(PthreadLock, "Simple lock -> unlock checker")
>         CHECKER(...)
>         OPTION(...)
> =====
> As an unrelated note, i've been dreaming for a while now about replacing
> packages with hashtags for more flexibility. Eg.,
>     CHECKER(PthreadLock, "Simple lock -> unlock checker", "#alpha #posix
> #pathsensitive #threading")
> Of course, we can always keep packages around for backwards compatibility.
> On 10/26/18 3:17 PM, Kristóf Umann wrote:
>> Too bad I cant edit mails.
>> Where I talked about extracting all isn't easily accessable fields and
>> related methods to CheckerManagerData, I actually meant *easily* accessible
>> (since some checkers actually need to access LangOptions, as well as
>> AnalyerOptions, both avaible when other similar -help options are handled).
>> On 26 Oct 2018 20:58, "Kristóf Umann" <dkszelethus at gmail.com <mailto:
>> dkszelethus at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     Hi!
>>     We did have a thread about this but with a very misleading title,
>>     so here's a link to that, and I'll get into this mail:
>>     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-October/059664.html
>>     <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-October/059664.html>
>>     AnalyzerOptions shouldn't be mutable once fully initialized (which
>>     should be achieveble by the time the actual analysis begins), and
>>     the greatest enemies of this idea are checker options, because
>>     * we can either forget about collecting all checker options and
>>     possibly diagnose them, and let checkers use AnalyzerOptions as a
>>     sort of set of user supplied options. This is the current state of
>>     things, and should my non-checker option refactoring effort go
>>     through, AnalyzerOptions can be made const straight away.
>>     * we could supply a mutable AnalyzerOptions object to the checkers
>>     when registering, let them register and evaluate their options,
>>     and make it immutable for the rest of the analysis.
>>     I'm highly in favour of the second option, but it's a non-trivial
>>     issue, mostly because of external plugins, which is why I'm
>>     looking for some feedback on my ideas.
>>     In order to register (and, more importantly, initialize) checkers,
>>     one needs to have access to a CheckerManager object, which isn't
>>     trivial to create, which makes it impossible to implement a help
>>     flag (like -analyzer-checker-help or the proposed
>>     -analyzer-config-help). I'm proposing two possible solutions.
>>     1. Extract everything that isn't easily accessible to a new
>>     CheckerManagerData class, make CheckerManager only responsible for
>>     interacting (but not registering) checkers. I've got a fork on
>>     which I managed to get this working, but I disliked this approach,
>>     and went on to find a better solution.
>>     2. Force checkers to properly register their options in a new,
>>     registerOptionsFor##CHECKERNAME function, which would take
>>     AnalyzerOptions as a parameter, alongside register##CHECKERNAME.
>>     This would add one more complication to the already
>>     very-not-trivial registering process, but could also be
>>     autogenerated using tblgen.
>>     It's clear to me that the second option is superior to the second,
>>     but going forward with either is a lot of work, so I'm looking for
>>     feedback.
>>     Thanks to everyone who already took the time to help me with this
>>     effort!
>>     Cheers,
>>     Kristóf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181030/ac04267c/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list