Potential Topics for BoF on the Clang Static Analyzer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Potential Topics for BoF on the Clang Static Analyzer

Xin Wang via cfe-dev
Hi Everyone,

We are interested in proposing to host a BoF at the next LLVM Dev meeting. 

For those of you who plan on attending, what topics would you be interested in discussing? (Feel free to send these either directly to us or to the list.)

Thanks!
Anna.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Potential Topics for BoF on the Clang Static Analyzer

Xin Wang via cfe-dev
One thing i'd gladly talk or listen about would be our checker API. We
have lots of boilerplate and code duplication in the analyzer's
checkers, and also common mistakes in typical tasks - in fact there are
just too many typical tasks that take experience to identify and
implement properly, that need to be re-implemented in every checker. I
often look at the newly submitted checker and wonder: the idea for the
check seems trivial, how come it's already 1k lines of code and keeps
growing? The smell of these issues suggests that possibly a better API
could have reduced the code size of many checkers dramatically, which
would in turn catch bugs and maybe even simplify and speed up reviews.
Even if grand projects like implementing a domain-specific language for
checkers (that would ideally reduce the checker to its typestate
diagram) would not necessarily be immediately taken up, i believe that
many good realistic ideas may arise from such discussion, or be shared
and investigated.

On 6/28/17 2:20 AM, Anna Zaks via cfe-dev wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> We are interested in /proposing/ to host a BoF at the next LLVM Dev
> meeting.
>
> For those of you who plan on attending, what topics would you be
> interested in discussing? (Feel free to send these either directly to
> us or to the list.)
>
> Thanks!
> Anna.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Potential Topics for BoF on the Clang Static Analyzer

Xin Wang via cfe-dev

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One thing i'd gladly talk or listen about would be our checker API. We have lots of boilerplate and code duplication in the analyzer's checkers, and also common mistakes in typical tasks - in fact there are just too many typical tasks that take experience to identify and implement properly, that need to be re-implemented in every checker.

I agree with this 100%. I think there are a lot of opportunities for higher-level checker APIs that would make it possible to “make the easy things easy”.

Devin


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Loading...