[cfe-dev] GSoD: analyzer checker docs?
Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 23 20:22:22 PDT 2019
All right, i missed the deadline because i didn't keep track of it in my
head. I still think it was a good idea to try, i guess let's try next
year in a less hasty manner.
On 4/19/19 8:12 PM, Kristóf Umann wrote:
> Yup, consider me convinced.
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 04:45, Artem Dergachev <noqnoqneo at gmail.com
> <mailto:noqnoqneo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I don't fully understand this either, but it's pretty hard to
> imagine that somebody from outside would be able to quickly
> understand how Static Analyzer works and uses this understanding
> solely for describing how it works. Even a GSoC student doesn't
> necessarily gather enough understanding throughout a summer of
> practical work on the analyzer to write such docs. On the other
> hand, about the docs that are scattered around - it's bad that
> they're scattered around, but they themselves aren't that bad
> (well, at least, i arrogantly believe they aren't that bad), just
> hard to find. I mean, they don't look like something that somebody
> should write for us; we'll probably do a better job writing
> in-depth docs because we're writing it for ourselves and we know
> what we need.
> On 4/19/19 6:58 PM, Devin Coughlin wrote:
>> I think we should try to focus the Google Summer of Documentation
>> project on documenting aspects of the analyzer that would benefit
>> our users. There are a lot more of them than there are of us
>> analyzer developers!
>> One area that would be great to improve on is describing for our
>> important checkers:
>> * What bugs does the checker find?
>> * Why are the bugs important?
>> * How should the bugs be fixed?
>> * How should false positives be suppressed?
>> The GSoD project is an amazing resource — we should take
>> advantage of it to improve our users’ experience of the analyzer.
>>> On Apr 19, 2019, at 4:37 PM, Kristóf Umann
>>> <dkszelethus at gmail.com <mailto:dkszelethus at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Sounds like the thing we always needed in my opinion! The
>>> analyzer could really use some better docs in certain areas --
>>> speaking from personal experience, I always thought that I just
>>> need more time to learning about the codebase before being able
>>> to understand patches related to, for example, liveness
>>> analysis. It wasn't until I attended Gábor Horváth's advanced
>>> compilers lectures at my university, when I understood that that
>>> is in fact something that exists in the literature, and the
>>> thing that we have in the analyzer is "merely" an implementation
>>> of it. I really liked what he said during the Birds of a Feather
>>> meeting on EuroLLVM, is that we do have many things documented,
>>> but it's scattered all over the place in youtube videos, cfe-dev
>>> mails, patch review discussions, bugzilla reports (especially
>>> before 2012) and the like. If under GSoD we could get this
>>> sorted out, get rid of most of HTML files we have on
>>> https://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/, and have an easy-to-navigate,
>>> easy-to-extend documentation for the long term, it would be far
>>> more inviting for newcomers as well. I might be biased, but the
>>> Clang Static Analyzer is very cool project, and I think if we
>>> made the transition from writing your first checker to making
>>> changes in the actual infrastructure a little easier, we would
>>> have a a lot easier time building a community around it.
>>> Couple thoughts of mine, I haven't read through the entire GSoD
>>> procedure thought.
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 at 03:12, Artem Dergachev
>>> <noqnoqneo at gmail.com <mailto:noqnoqneo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Tanya made this call for Google thing of Docs, which is like
>>> summer of
>>> code just for docs
>>> There's been a lot of work on checker docs in the Analyzer
>>> recently. Do
>>> we want to take this opportunity?
>>> Like, if it gives us a nice, stylish, easy-to-understand,
>>> description of what the checker thinks the user's code is
>>> doing and how
>>> bad does it think it is, it might be pretty neat.
More information about the cfe-dev