<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">(+Sam, who works on clang tooling)<br><br>On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:38 AM Artem Dergachev <<a href="mailto:noqnoqneo@gmail.com">noqnoqneo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 4/28/20 6:23 PM, David Blaikie wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:09 AM Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev <br>
> <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hey!<br>
><br>
> 1. I'm glad that we're finally trying to avoid dumping PCH-s on disk!<br>
><br>
> 2. As far as I understand, dependencies are mostly about Clang binary<br>
> size. I don't know for sure but that's what I had to consider when<br>
> I was<br>
> adding libASTMatchers into the Clang binary a few years ago.<br>
><br>
> 3. I strongly disagree that JSON compilation database is "just<br>
> right for<br>
> this purpose". I don't mind having explicit improved support for<br>
> it but<br>
> I would definitely prefer not to hardcode it as the only possible<br>
> option. Compilation databases are very limited and we cannot drop<br>
> projects or entire build systems simply because they can't be<br>
> represented accurately via a compilation database. So I believe that<br>
> this is not the right solution for CTU in particular. Instead, an<br>
> external tool like scan-build should be guiding CTU analysis and<br>
> coordinate the work of different Clang instances so that to abstract<br>
> Clang away from the build system.<br>
><br>
><br>
> What functionality do you picture the scan-build-like tool having that <br>
> couldn't be supported if that tool instead built a compilation <br>
> database & the CTU/CSA was powered by the database? (that would <br>
> separate concerns: build command discovery from execution, and make <br>
> scan-build-like tool more general purpose, rather than specific only <br>
> to the CSA)<br>
<br>
Here are a few examples (please let me know if i'm unaware of the latest <br>
developments in the area of compilation databases!)<br>
<br>
- Suppose the project uses precompiled headers. In order to analyze a <br>
file that includes a pch, we need to first rebuild the pch with the <br>
clang that's used for analysis, and only then try to analyze the file. <br>
This introduces a notion of dependency between compilation database <br>
entries; unless entries are ordered in their original compilation order <br>
and we're analyzing with -j1, race conditions will inevitably cause us <br>
to occasionally fail to find the pch. I didn't try to figure out what <br>
happens when modules are used, but i suspect it's worse. </blockquote><div><br>Google certainly uses clang tooling, with a custom compilation database on a build that uses explicit modules - I believe the way that's done is to ignore/strip the modules-related flags so the clang tooling uses non-modules related compilation. But I could be wrong there. You could do some analysis to see any inputs/outputs - or reusing the existing outputs in the original build.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">But if analysis <br>
is conducted alongside compilation and the build system waits for the <br>
analysis to finish like it waits for compilation to finish before <br>
compiling dependent translation units, race conditions are eliminated. <br>
This is how scan-build currently works: it substitutes the compiler with <br>
a fake compiler that both invokes the original compiler and clang for <br>
analysis. Of course, cross-translation-unit analysis won't be conducted <br>
in parallel with compilation; it's multi-pass by design. The problem is <br>
the same though: it should compile pch files first but there's no notion <br>
of "compile this first" in an unstructured compilation database.<br>
<br>
- Suppose the project builds the same translation unit multiple times, <br>
say with different flags, say for different architectures. When we're <br>
trying to lookup such file in the compilation database, how do we figure <br>
out which instance do we take? If we are to ever solve this problem, we <br>
have to introduce a notion of a "shipped binary" (an ultimate linking <br>
target) in the compilation database and perform cross-translation-unit <br>
analysis of one shipped binary at a time.<br></blockquote><div><br>I believe in that case the compilation database would include both compilations of the file - and presumably for the static analyzer, it would want to build all of them (or scan-build would have to have some logic for filtering them out/deciding which one is the interesting one - same sort of thing would have to be done on the compilation database)<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">- There is a variety of hacks that people can introduce in their <br>
projects if they add arbitrary scripts to their build system. For <br>
instance, they can mutate contents of an autogenerated header in the <br>
middle of the build. We can always say "Well, you shouldn't do that", <br>
but people will do that anyway. This makes me believe that no purely <br>
declarative compilation database format will ever be able to handle such <br>
Turing-complete hacks and there's no other way to integrate analysis <br>
into build perfectly other than by letting the build system guide the <br>
analysis.<br></blockquote><div><br>Yep, a mutating build where you need to observe the state before/after such mutations, etc, not much you could do about it. (& how would CTU SA work in that sort of case? You have to run the whole build multiple times?)<br><br>Clang tools are essentially static analysis - so it seems weird that we have two different approaches to static analysis discovery/lookup in the Clang project, but not wholely unacceptable, potentially different goals, etc.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I'm also all for separation of concerns and I don't think any of this is <br>
specific to our static analysis.<br>
<br>
> On 4/28/20 11:31 AM, Endre Fülöp via cfe-dev wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi!<br>
> ><br>
> > Question:<br>
> ><br>
> > Why is the dependency on ClangTooling ill-advised inside ClangSA<br>
> (also<br>
> > meaning the Clang binary) itself ?<br>
> ><br>
> > Context:<br>
> ><br>
> > Currently I am working on an alternative way to import external TU<br>
> > AST-s during analysis ( <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D75665" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D75665</a> ).<br>
> ><br>
> > In order to produce AST-s, I use a compilation database to<br>
> extract the<br>
> > necessary flags, and finally use ClangTool::buildAST.<br>
> ><br>
> > I am aware that I have other options for this as well (like<br>
> manually<br>
> > coding the compdb handling for my specific case for the<br>
> ><br>
> > first step, and maybe even dumping ASTs as pch-s into an in-memory<br>
> > buffer), but still consuming JSONCompilationDatabase<br>
> ><br>
> > is just too convenient. I would not want to introduce another<br>
> format<br>
> > when compilation database is just right for this purpose.<br>
> ><br>
> > Elaboration:<br>
> ><br>
> > While I understand that introducing dependencies has its downsides,<br>
> > but not being able to reuse code from Tooling is also not ideal.<br>
> ><br>
> > I would very much like to be enlightened by someone more<br>
> familiar with<br>
> > architectural decision already made why this is the case,<br>
> ><br>
> > and optionally how I could proceed with my efforts so that I can<br>
> come<br>
> > up with the most fitting solution i.e. not a hack.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> ><br>
> > Endre Fülöp<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > cfe-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cfe-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>