[cfe-dev] Open sourcing a batch of checkers

[Anna Zaks]

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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).

+1 

We do have several non-path sensitive checkers in the Static Analyzer (for example checkers based on RecursiveASTVisitors), so adding those to the static analyzer could also be an option.

One issue I can see here us that the clang-tidy output does not support reporting paths from the path sensitive checks. Adding plist output option to clang-tidy which supports paths reporting could be a useful enhancement.

(Please, CC me on all the patches to the Static Analyzer.)

> 
> On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 1:40:05 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <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/20141228/d9e952f9/attachment.html>