[cfe-dev] Clang static analyzer: ignore library headers?

[Anna Zaks]

On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Aemon Cannon <aemoncannon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I'm mostly interested in hiding issues from those headers (performance is a side benefit).

One thing to remember is that even if you don't check the functions from the headers as the main entry points, you might still get issues from those files reported; specifically, while analyzing the functions from your source files that call them. Possibly, the best solution is to not analyze the extra functions(for performance) and suppress reports coming from the third party libraries as well. There is one issue though. Since the analyzer bugs correspond to paths, you might have a path that spans through your code and the third party code. There is usually no way of identifying which code actually causes the problem..

> 

I think it would be generally valuable to have a mode where issues coming from black listed libraries would be hidden. You could do it from the checker as I've mentioned, but you could also add an experimental (off by default) option to the analyzer and suppress issues inside BugReporter. This would make it work for all checkers. shouldReportIssuesInMainSourceFile is a very good example of how you would do that.

> I'll look into the approaches you suggested.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> Aemon
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote:
> Are you mostly concerned abut performance implications of analyzing third party headers?
> One might also not want to show issues reported in those, in which case the black list might also be useful.
> 
> You could add another option to the analyzer that enables checking only in the project headers. This would be similar to how !AnalyzeAll option works - we just skip the functions defined in headers in AnalysisConsumer. (Note, that if you just wanted to suppress the issues, you could most likely do it from the checker.) 
> 
> If you are to add another option, note that we are switching to a new method of defining options - you should not need to modify CompilerInviocation, for example, see "shouldReportIssuesInMainSourceFile" .
> 
> Anna.
> 
> On Sep 16, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Aemon Cannon <aemoncannon at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Anna,
>> 
>> I would be happy with some way to specify a local blacklist. At the moment,  once I enable the analyzer-header option, it doesn't seem like I have any sway over which headers the checker is run over. I suspect my checker is doing a lot of extra work grinding through library headers.
>> 
>> (it may help to know that this is an intraprocedural analysis, so I don't care about chasing arguments into libraries)
>> 
>> Thanks, Aemon
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote:
>> We don't have a list of known third-party headers anywhere, but having this seems generally useful.
>> 
>> Anna.
>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Aemon Cannon <aemoncannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I'd want to enable analysis of project headers (-analyzer-opt-analyze-headers), but would like to ignore third-party library headers. Currently I have an ad hoc, in-checker, solution to this problem, but was wondering if there's an easier way. Would be nice if there was a blacklist of directories or something.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aemon
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20130916/09c635f9/attachment.html>