[cfe-dev] Creating 'clang-mutate' for clang-tools-extra

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev]

I'd expect the problem with running it on the IR level to be to get the
information what exactly changed back to the user.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016, 7:51 PM Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> That is interesting idea. The other mistake that would be easy to change
> is finding +1 errors like
>
> for (int i = 0 ; i < n ; i++ )
> =>
> for (int i = 0 ; i <= n ; i++)
>
> or changing ++it to it++ in the cases where the result goes to other expr.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2016-08-09 8:47 GMT-07:00 David Blaikie via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>
>> Haven't heard of anyone working on it (& don't have time myself) - but
>> I've been looking forward to/wanting to see such a tool in LLVM/Clang for a
>> while now. (if you could have it running on a buildbot or similar that
>> tracked LLVM changes so we could vet code change test coverage... that'd be
>> so awesome)
>>
>> I'd always pictured such a tool as more like a sanitizer/run at the LLVM
>> IR level rather than as source transformations - but I've not thought about
>> it too much & maybe it makes more sense as a real source transformation
>> (easier to communicate to the user "this change is not caught by test
>> coverage").
>>
>> (idle thought: Presumably it'd be easier to just add a ! at the top of
>> the boolean expression, so transforming "if (date > expiry)" into "if
>> (!(date > expiry))")
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:02 AM Jonathan Coe via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like a tool that applies plausible edits to code so I can check if
>>> tests pick up the change or not.
>>>
>>> I think I can do this with a clang-tidy-like framework with a list of
>>> mutations (rather than checks).
>>>
>>> The tool would produce a large list of single-change 'fixes' for
>>> clang-apply-fixes to make use of and to be set up as a series of mutated
>>> branches for a CI system. Applying mutations to only new code should keep
>>> the set manageable.
>>>
>>> An example mutation would invert `<` in conditionals:
>>>
>>> `if(date > expiry ) { return 0.0; }`
>>>
>>> is mutated to
>>>
>>> `if(date < expiry ) { return 0.0; }`
>>>
>>> If our tests don't spot this, we have a gap.
>>>
>>> Is anyone working on, or interested in collaborating on a similar tool?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160810/ff25802e/attachment.html>