[cfe-dev] Building upon the clang static analyzer

Gábor Horváth xazax.hun at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 23:41:43 PDT 2013


Do you think, it would be a suitable GSoC project to make the Analyzer to
work with the libTooling infrastructure? Not just making it able to work as
a standalone tool, but make it easier to combine the features of analyzer,
matchers and replacements. Because in that case I would like to propose
this project for Google Summer of Code, and I would like to work on this

I am very interested about your feedbacks on this topic.

Gábor Horváth

On 9 April 2013 18:57, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

> To build on what Anna said, the analyzer predates libTooling, but does use
> the same ASTFrontendAction infrastructure that a tooling plugin would use.
> It does seem like you would be able to run the AnalysisAction through
> libTooling, but we haven't ever tried this. Let us know how it turns out!
> (There is of course no reason why you couldn't write custom syntactic
> checkers that use libASTMatchers, and then you could just use the regular
> --analyze interface to the analyzer. But that might be a bit more intrusive
> of a change.)
> Jordan
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 11:12 , Gábor Kozár <kozargabor at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're working on a static analysis tool that would enforce certain
> design (coding) rules in some private C++ projects. So far we've been
> working on a custom tool, using clang libtooling, to implement some fairly
> trivial checks using AST matchers - however, we realized that building upon
> the clang static analyzer would be a much better choice, especially when
> implementing more complicated checks.
> >
> > I have had a quick look at the static analyzer source code, and it
> appears to me that it's basically an ASTFrontendAction
> (lib/StaticAnalyzer/FrontendActions.h), which to me indicates that this is
> "just another" tool built upon clang libtooling. Is this correct?
> > It would be extremely convenient for us if it were so, because we could
> extend it seamlessly with our custom checkers into a custom analyzer tool.
> >
> > I also read on the website of the static analyzer that C++ support is
> not complete. However, I'm not sure how up-to-date the information on that
> website is kept, so I'll just ask it here: what is the state of the C++
> (and C++11) support?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > (Btw, we are very impressed by clang, and its static analyzer. Thank you
> for all your hard work! You guys are amazing!)
> >
> > Gabor
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130411/b0b0461f/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list