[cfe-dev] scan-build in python

[Laszlo Nagy]

a gentle ping!

could somebody look on the reimplementation and hint me how to proceed
further with integration into Clang? since my last message i did correct
the followings:

- unit test are ported from 'nose' to 'unittest'
- minor code changes
  - do not collect 'link options' since those are not used
  - rename cps decorator to require
  - fix process handling issues
- add more documentation
  - fixed the misleading README file
- built as a python package
  - the perl implementation of scan-build is checked in as 'beye' for
testing

thanks,
Laszlo


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Laszlo Nagy <
rizsotto.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi,
>
> based on your feedbacks, made several changes to the python
> implementation. one of the tasks i'm struggle with is to add more comment.
> :) and there is one major thing which i do in the python script, because
> the perl script does the same. although i don't see the reason why it is
> like this.
>
> when analyzer is executed it is done in two steps.
>
> |  $ clang -### --analyze ...the.rest.of.the.command...
> |  ...
> |  "clang" "-cc1" ...some.more.parameters...
> |  $ "clang" "-cc1" ...some.more.parameters...
>
> so, we ask clang to print how to run the analyzer, and then we execute
> that command which was emitted. although it would be the very same to do
> this
>
> |  $ clang --analyze ...the.rest.of.the.command...
>
> can somebody tell me what is the reason behind this indirection?
>
> thanks in advance,
> Laszlo
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Laszlo Nagy <
> rizsotto.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hi there,
>>
>> during the last half year i did re-implemented the `ccc-analyzer` and
>> `c++-analyzer` perl scripts in python. to make it into the Clang code base
>> i would like to know what would be the acceptance criteria for such scripts.
>>
>> the current version available from here <https://github.com/rizsotto/Beye
>> >
>>
>> - it works, tested on python 2.6, 2.7, 3.x,
>> - it has no dependencies other than standard python modules,
>> - it differs from the current perl implementation in functionality,
>>   - does not generate not-used-attribute files, since analyzer does not
>> report it;
>>   - does not generate parser reject report, since analyzer does not
>> report it;
>>   - does not check '-isysroot' uniqness;
>>   - does execute 'clang' binary only if it needed (one time less than
>> current perl);
>>   - does not copy pre-compiled header (.ghc) files into report directory;
>> - it works together with current 'scan-build',
>> - it was tested only on Linux.
>>
>> is it something that i need to fix or implement?
>>
>> what format would you like to get it? i'm thinking to create a python
>> package out of it. (currently it's non python package conform.) but
>> recently took a look on llvm-lit. which might be a good pattern to follow.
>> (they keep python module structure, but CMake also plays role to install
>> those scripts.)
>>
>> currently unit tests are written in 'nose'. (which is non standard python
>> module.) shall i rewrote it into the standard python unit test? is there
>> any example inside Clang code base? (python script with tests around it.)
>>
>> and one more question: current implementation is collecting the compiler
>> and link options into separate array. but the link options are never used.
>> can i stop collecting those or shall fix other parts of the code?
>>
>> regards,
>> Laszlo
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Laszlo Nagy <
>> rizsotto.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hi there,
>>>
>>> started to write a python script around Clang's static analyzer.
>>> mainly because found difficult to use the `scan-build` script. wanted
>>> to run against a compilation database instead of intercept the
>>> compiler calls. but would like to preserve the current usage as
>>> well... then at the same time, saw this page
>>> <http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/open_projects.html> which suggest the
>>> rewrite as well. so, it might be a perfect match! ;)
>>>
>>> and as i try to copy the functionality of the `ccc-analyze` and
>>> `scan-build` scripts, discovered few minor bugs. (or they are not
>>> bugs, and i'm the one who can't read perl well.)
>>>
>>> now i'm looking for a person i can ask about these scripts.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Laszlo
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140701/9854b0ec/attachment.html>