[PATCH] D58065: [analyzer] Document the frontend library

Mon Feb 18 16:21:34 PST 2019

george.karpenkov added a comment.

High-level feedback: mixing of abstraction levels is wrong for the "bundled" documentation. This might also work better as a blogpost, if you want to jump from topic to topic.

================
Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:11-13
+This document will describe the frontend of the Static Analyzer, basically
+everything from compiling the analyzer from source, through it's invocation up
+to the beginning of the analysis. It will touch on topics such as
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> First of all, "frontend" is, as far as i understand, a weird word to use with respect to this library in general. I think what they were trying to say was something like "The Static Analyzer-specific part of the C Front End's command-line flags" (as opposed to Driver flags), but calling this UI "The Frontend" is a bit weird. We probablyshould try to somehow avoid confusion with the "compiler frontend" concept throughout this document.
+1, not sure what the word "frontend" adds here.
IMO "frontend" in folder/library name is more of a relic in this case.

================
Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:57-88
+Following this, the compilation goes on as usual. The fastest way of obtaining
+the analyzer for development is by configuring CMake with the following options:
+
+* Use the `Ninja` build system
+* Build in `Release` with asserts enabled (Only recommended for slower
+  computers!)
+* Build shared libraries
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> For the above reason i think this text deserves a better document to be put into; this is definitely important to know for a much wider audience than developers of libStaticAnalyzerFrontend.
Strictly speaking for tests it's better to use `check-clang-analyzer`.
Also again strictly speaking it's not possible to compile analyzer without compiling `clang`.

================
Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:85
+    -fuse-ld=lld \
+    ../llvm
+
----------------
Information on compiling LLVM IMO should not be here.
Also, why Sphinx? Why X86? Why LLD and not gold?

Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D58065/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D58065