dcoughlin added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9600#305980, @rizsotto.mailinglist wrote:
> > Also, what do you think about renaming intercept-build to "log-build" or > > some of the other alternatives I proposed above? I think it is important > > for the name of the executable to communicate its purpose. > > > ... and to be honest, the executable name scan-build just as bad as > intercept-build. :) There are many things about the original scan-build that are bad. As you have seen, the perl-based scan-build is poorly named, poorly factored, insufficiently documented and poorly tested. This has made it very difficult to fix bugs, support new platforms, and extend scan-build's functionality -- and is exactly the reason why we are so excited about a scan-build reimplementation. With this reimplementation, we have the opportunity to do so much better! If we live up to the high standards in the rest of the clang/llvm codebase about naming, factoring, documentation, and testing then the new scan-build will be much easier to maintain and can serve as a solid foundation to add new features. ================ Comment at: tools/scan-build-py/README.md:84 @@ +83,3 @@ +The 2. mode is available only on FreeBSD, Linux and OSX. Where library preload +is available from the dynamic loader. On OSX System Integrity Protection security +feature enabled prevents library preload, so this method will not work in such ---------------- With respect to dynamic library-interposition still not working on OS X, the System Integrity Protection in OS X 10.11 should not prevent interposition on build tools so in theory intercept-build should work. I'll look into it. ================ Comment at: tools/scan-build-py/libscanbuild/runner.py:23 @@ +22,3 @@ + """ Decorator for checking the required values in state. + + It checks the required attributes in the passed state and stop when ---------------- Ok. If I create a patch with additional documentation for these fields, would you be willing to take a look at it to make sure the comments are correct? http://reviews.llvm.org/D9600 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
