[cfe-dev] status of C++ analyzer support, list of what is still needed?

[Nico Weber]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

> Hi, Tim. The 3.2 release of LLVM brought a wealth of C++ understanding to
> the analyzer,
>

http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/dev_cxx.html still says "Support for
analyzing C++ and Objective-C++ files is currently extremely limited".
Should that be updated?


> so while support is still incomplete, it should now already be a useful
> tool for C++. It just might not find as much as it could in theory.
>
> I think your idea of a status page is a good one, but I am a bit hesitant
> about committing to it, mainly because saying the analyzer "supports"
> something is a bit nebulous. There are many constructs we "support" but do
> not model very precisely. That said, there are known deficiencies which we
> have definite plans to improve, the most immediate one being the inlining
> of constructors and destructors for local variables. We have only so much
> manpower, though.
>
> I'm glad you saw our talk already. Unfortunately, what we consider "C++
> support" is work that happens in the analyzer core, rather than in
> checkers. Checkers affect how the analyzer processes a statement, but it's
> the core that actually determines what statements to process (e.g.
> inlining, taking branches, etc). As John pointed out, however, there are
> plenty of C++-related checks<http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/potential_checkers.html> that
> need to be implemented before the analyzer can be considered a first-class
> C++ analysis tool—we don't even pair "new" and "delete" right now.
>
> So I'd say use the analyzer we have today<http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/index.html>,
> and update every so often to get our latest improvements.
>
> Does that help?
> Jordan
>
>
> On Jan 1, 2013, at 12:32 , Tim Stowell <stowellt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I realize C++ support isn't yet complete for the static analyzer, but is
> there a place where I can go to see the status, and what needs to be
> finished?
>
> Also, I'm assuming that the C++ functionality is based on "checkers", is
> that the case? I ask because I was looking over the notes from the 2012
> llvm meeting specifically the talk titled "Building a Checker in 24
> hours". Thanks for any pointers, I'm new to clang but would like to use it
> to analyze C++ code.
>
> -Tim
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130102/6e9feaba/attachment.html>