[llvmlinux] [GSoC] Static analysis
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
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.
behanw at converseincode.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LLVMLinux