Page MenuHomePhabricator

[clang-tidy] Support for Static Analyzer plugins (clang part)
AbandonedPublic

Authored by xazax.hun on May 7 2015, 5:39 AM.

Details

Summary

This is the clang part of http://reviews.llvm.org/D9555.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

xazax.hun updated this revision to Diff 25169.May 7 2015, 5:39 AM
xazax.hun retitled this revision from to [clang-tidy] Support for Static Analyzer plugins (clang part).
xazax.hun updated this object.
xazax.hun edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
xazax.hun added reviewers: alexfh, klimek, djasper.
xazax.hun added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
alexfh added a subscriber: alexfh.May 7 2015, 6:25 AM

Replaced reviewers with the actual static analyzer code owners.

A few peanut gallery comments as well.

include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerRegistry.h
16

nit: Place this before #include <vector> to maintain the correct order.

include/clang/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistration.h
30

s/plugins/Plugins/

lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/CheckerRegistry.cpp
155

s/result/Result/ to follow the LLVM naming convention.

156

I'd rather sort result than the Checkers field. It's weird when a getter method modifies a class field (it's marked mutable for some reason, but I don't think it's good to abuse this).

158

Can you use a range-based for loop here?

lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/CheckerRegistration.cpp
138

s/plugins/Plugins/

babati added a subscriber: babati.Jun 8 2015, 2:04 AM
alexfh added a comment.Nov 5 2015, 1:32 PM

What's the state here?

alexfh added a comment.Nov 5 2015, 1:33 PM

http://reviews.llvm.org/D9555 depends on this patch. Are these two patches still interesting to someone?

Unfortunately I had no time to work on this patch, and after I did not finish this the team I was working in took a different approach: running static analyzer checker through clang and tidy checkers through clang tidy. Initially we wanted to avoid this approach, because they are invoked differently. I have no interest finishing this patch at the moment, but I can not tell for sure for the future. Should I abadon this?

alexfh added a comment.Nov 5 2015, 2:29 PM

Unfortunately I had no time to work on this patch, and after I did not finish this the team I was working in took a different approach: running static analyzer checker through clang and tidy checkers through clang tidy. Initially we wanted to avoid this approach, because they are invoked differently. I have no interest finishing this patch at the moment, but I can not tell for sure for the future. Should I abadon this?

If it's not needed, then probably yes.

xazax.hun abandoned this revision.Nov 5 2015, 2:32 PM