[cfe-dev] Open sourcing a batch of checkers

[Manuel Klimek]

Yep, the general idea is:
1. if it's using ASTMatchers or PPCallbacks, make it a clang-tidy check
2. if it's using the CFG / being path sensitive, make it a Static Analyzer
checker

Note that static analyzer checkers are integrated in clang-tidy
automatically - usually style rule stuff is much easier expressed in
clang-tidy though (and I don't think static analyzer checks are integrated
well with fix-its (but I'm not sure), and style violations usually have
easy fix-its).

On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 1:40:05 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> +Manuel
>
> clang-tidy seems like a natural place for things that find "design rule
> violations".
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Gábor Horváth <xazax.hun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am an intern at a company where we developed several checkers based on
>> the clang infrastructure. We have about 30 checkers that are either C++
>> core language or STL related. We would like to contribute some of these
>> checkers (together with the documentation and the test cases). The ones
>> that are well tested and have good false positive rates.
>>
>>
>> Most of the checkers were originally developed find certain design rule
>> violations. One example of a design rule at this company is: „The emptiness
>> of a container should be checked using the empty method instead of the size
>> method. It is not guaranteed that size is a constant-time function, and it
>> is generally more efficient and also shows clearer intent to use empty.
>> Furthermore some containers may implement the empty method but not
>> implement the size method. Using empty whenever possible makes it easier to
>> switch to another container in the future.” We realized that, maybe such
>> checkers could be useful for the clang community as well.
>>
>>
>> Our tool right now is a clang plugin that runs custom frontend actions on
>> the analyzed source code. The reason is that, some of the checkers are only
>> consist of ASTMatchers, some of them using RecursiveASTVisitors, some of
>> them are clang Static Analyzer checkers. We are wondering what would be the
>> desired way to contribute those checkers back. Should we focus on migrating
>> them to clang-tidy? Should we focus on transforming them to Static Analyzer
>> checkers?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gábor Horváth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141218/eaaf3e4c/attachment.html>