analysis vs fixit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

analysis vs fixit

Axel Naumann
Hi,

I have written a tiny coding convention checker, see attachment. You're
very welcome to include it (after a long period of tough reviews :-).
It's really only a proof-of-concept for now, missing basic things like
validation ("do we have a config file?"), customization, and: fixit. And
because I'm still a novice to clang I'm sure that it's a) suboptimal and
b) wrong :-) I will definitely benefit from your comments.

The fixit problem is that the convention checker (also according to
Mike, see
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2009-October/006633.html>)
should be seen as an analysis. But if the frontend does analysis I don't
see how it can do fixit :-( Any suggestions? Shouldn't -fixit and
-analyze be both allowed at the same time? Or am I misunderstanding some
basic concept here?

Cheers, Axel.


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

CodingConvention.tar.bz2 (10K) Download Attachment
coderules.txt (615 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [cfe-dev] analysis vs fixit

Ted Kremenek
Hi Axel,

The -analyze option activates the static analyzer component, which uses an entirely different mechanism for reporting bugs than the frontend.  It should be viewed as a separate tool.  The analyzer happens to use Diagnostics to output information about static analyzer reports to the console, but that's only as an aid.  Fixit support needs to be properly added to the BugReport and BugReporter classes in order for the static analyzer to support fixits (as well as supporting a workflow for fixits in the static analyzer "GUI", e.g. scan-view).

I'd interpret '-fixit' as a frontend option that has nothing to do with the static analyzer.  Once fixits are supported by the static analyzer, they'll be incorporated into the GUI for viewing analyzer reports.

Ted

On Jan 23, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Axel Naumann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have written a tiny coding convention checker, see attachment. You're
> very welcome to include it (after a long period of tough reviews :-).
> It's really only a proof-of-concept for now, missing basic things like
> validation ("do we have a config file?"), customization, and: fixit. And
> because I'm still a novice to clang I'm sure that it's a) suboptimal and
> b) wrong :-) I will definitely benefit from your comments.
>
> The fixit problem is that the convention checker (also according to
> Mike, see
> <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2009-October/006633.html>)
> should be seen as an analysis. But if the frontend does analysis I don't
> see how it can do fixit :-( Any suggestions? Shouldn't -fixit and
> -analyze be both allowed at the same time? Or am I misunderstanding some
> basic concept here?
>
> Cheers, Axel.
>
> <CodingConvention.tar.bz2><coderules.txt>_______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev