Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #68182

Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser?

Show all headers | View raw

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
<qk6nnl$nh0$1@dont-email.me> thusly:

>On 28/08/2019 22:00, Richard wrote:
>> I agree, but suggesting that one use lex/yacc for parsing C++ is an
>> approach that many people have tried and failed.  It's a really awful
>> idea.  That suggestion should not be left out in the open
>> unchallenged.
>> 
>> This is particularly true when you can just use the clang libraries to
>> get a perfectly conforming C++20 parser that will just hand you an
>> AST.
>> 

>Another option that would be interesting for static analysis is a gcc 
>plugin, possibly written in a different language (Python is a reasonable 
>choice for such tasks).

Bwuahahahahaha!  That is hilarious.  Seriously.  I know they've
improved gcc at this point, but Stallman et al. have literally said
that they made the internal interface as painful as possible to put
into a library on purpose because they didn't want anyone doing that.

Clang was designed from the ground up to be used as a library.

>I can't tell you whether clang or gcc would be the best starting point 
>for making your own static analysis tools, but I look at both of them 
>/long/ before looking at lex/yacc.

Don't bother looking at lex/yacc because the context-sensitive nature
of many C++ constructs makes it impossible to use lex/yacc.

Don't waste your time with GCC because it isn't designed to be used
this way.

Go straight to clang because that's what it's been designed for.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-08-22 18:18 +0200
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-22 20:04 +0200
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-23 08:42 +1200
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-08-22 23:38 +0000
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-08-22 23:38 +0000
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-08-25 06:09 +0000
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Jens Kallup <jkallup@web.de> - 2019-08-28 15:57 +0200
    Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-08-28 18:18 +0000
      Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-08-28 19:22 +0000
        Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-08-28 20:00 +0000
          Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-08-28 22:21 +0200
            Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-03 20:17 +0000
              Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-04 09:03 +0200
          Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-08-29 09:58 +0000
  Re: What is easiest to use static C++ code analyser? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 10:44 +0200

csiph-web