[llvmlinux] [GSoC] Static analysis

Behan Webster behanw at converseincode.com
Mon Apr 29 21:06:23 UTC 2013


On 13-04-29 04:34 PM, Eduard Bachmakov wrote:
>
> I see. Makes sense. I was just wondering if the Makefiles are 
> generated automatically or written by hand. From the two responses 
> (and the pretty-ness of the markup inside of them) I gather it's the 
> latter.
Yes, hand built. Like I said, think of it as a script.

>>
>>     I was able to x64 just fine the other day. (I also tried it with
>>     allyesconfig but that (obviously) failed).
>     We don't support all configurations yet. Getting to the point
>     where we are already has taken a lot of work already.
>
>
> I understand. It was also on of the ideas on the GSoC page to have 
> allyesconfig work. I was just curious how long until the error (longer 
> than I expected; it was a VLAS).
I would expect allyesconfig would fail very quickly. :)

>>         As far as the scope for implementing checker for the kernel,
>>         many of the frequent contributors just have not had the time
>>         to try it. From those who have tried it, we know it doesn't
>>         just work out of the box.
>>
>>
>>     I see. When ever I used the analyzer it was using the scan-build
>>     tool. Need to check whether it works with the custom build system
>     We don't need to run it on our makefiles. We need it run on the
>     kernel makefiles (Kbuild). The analyzer would be driven by our
>     build system.
>
>
> The way I understand the system, it basically replaces env variables 
> but allows customization, does error-handling, sets defaults, etc. I 
> was just wondering if it would propagate through down to where the 
> `make` that actually builds the kernel.
That would be the gig: Figuring this out, then ultimately tuning it for 
the kernel if time permitted (adding specific analysis/checks which are 
Linux kernel specific).

>>         Its an advanced task because the kernel make system is
>>         complcated, and it may require modifying LLVM or checker
>>         code. We just don't know yet.
>>
>>
>>     Alright. My plan was to read up on the whole kbuild system and
>>     see how flags/commands enabling the analyzer would be integrated.
>     The idea isn't to integrate it into the kernel build system. We
>     want to run it against the kernel build. So updates to the
>     analyzer to support the kernel would be the ideal situation.
>
>
> I don't think I quite understand what you mean here. The analyzer 
> itself is -- afaik -- the "--analyze" flag to clang (+ whatever 
> "sub"-flags there are). Could you please elaborate?
Probably my misunderstanding. Sounded like you were suggesting that it 
needed to be integrated into Kbuild. My bad.

I was trying to clarify (unsuccessfully it seems :) ) that the tool 
needs to ideally be able to run over the Linux kernel code with a 
minimum of changes to the Kernel code itself.

Behan

-- 
Behan Webster
behanw at converseincode.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/attachments/20130429/695d3fd1/attachment.html>


More information about the LLVMLinux mailing list