[cfe-dev] scan-build in python

[Jordan Rose]

Wow, nice work!

I'm a bit concerned about this note:

>   - does not generate parser reject report, since analyzer does not report it;


IIRC this happens when the analyzer crashes for some reason. I can't remember what happens if the file merely fails to compile, but you can test the crash case with "#pragma clang __debug crash".

I would guess we collect link options because $CC or $CXX is often used for linking as well as building—remember that scan-build actually builds a project in addition to analyzing it. I'm not sure how we detect that, though, or if it's still necessary.

And sorry for completely missing the -isysroot question. I agree, checking that explicitly seems unnecessary.

I'm on vacation for the rest of the week, so I wouldn't be able to get back to you right away. Anna and Ted probably need to weigh in on if we want to take this into Clang proper (and we'd have to test it on OS X, including Xcode integration). If so, then yes, we would want to use a non-external unit test format. I've never worked with them, but it looks like we have tests for the Python bindings to libclang in bindings/python/tests.

One thing I am a bit concerned about is complexity—not that the old code was simple, but some of analyzer.py seems rather opaque. (Does the CPS model really help that much?) The style also doesn't always seem consistent throughout the code (spaces around assignment operators was the main thing that jumped out at me).

But overall, nice work, and I hope I or Anna gets the chance to try it out soon.
Jordan


On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:30 , 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/20140624/c04ec8d0/attachment.html>