Szelethus added a comment. In D50488#1403197 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50488#1403197>, @mgrang wrote:
> > It's because it invokes CodeChecker, which by default enables > > valist.Uninitialized, but not ValistBase. Do you have assert failures after > > my hotfix? > > @Szelethus Thanks. I run into this assert when run through CodeChecker: > > Assertion `CheckerTags.count(tag) != 0 && "Requested checker is not > registered! Maybe you should add it as a " "dependency in Checkers.td?"' > > > Is there a workaround? Uhh, I'm afraid the only way out is to actually fix the problem :) couple questions: 1. Are you *sure* that you rebased to rC354235 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rC354235> (which is the hotfix I mentioned), CodeChecker runs *that* clang when the assert failure happens? 2. Can you provide a stacktrace? Luckily, that would for sure point me to the problematic checker. In D50488#1403199 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50488#1403199>, @mgrang wrote: > Also I don't see the helptext for PointerSorting when I run: > > clang -cc1 -analyzer-checker-help | grep Pointer > > alpha.core.PointerArithm Check for pointer arithmetic on locations > other than array elements > alpha.core.PointerSub Check for pointer subtractions on two > pointers pointing to different memory chunks > alpha.nondeterminism.PointerSorting > cplusplus.InnerPointer Check for inner pointers of C++ > containers used after re/deallocation > How about `clang -cc1 -analyzer-checker-help | grep Pointer -A3`? There could be a linebreak after the ckecker's name (raises the question though whether it should be there). In D50488#1403212 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50488#1403212>, @mgrang wrote: > > There is a revision to solve this problem here: D58065 > > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58065>. I guess your input, as someone who > > didn't participate in the checker dependency related patch reviews would be > > invaluable, in terms of whether my description is understandable enough. > > Thanks. I took a look at the documentation and it looks fine to me (modulo > the comments from other reviewers and a couple of minor typos). I feel the > csa-testbench documentation (https://github.com/Xazax-hun/csa-testbench) is > very minimal and does not document a lot of intricacies which I had to figure > out by trial-and-error. Due to an upcoming conference, I didn't bother with it much, i just used CodeChecker on its own, which is fairly well documented. I'm trying to move my checker out of alpha, and my testing goes as follows: 1. Clone LLVM+Clang, cppcheck, rtags, bitcoin, xerces (you could throw in vim, tmux, as your checker isnt C++ exclusive, or whatever else) 2. Create compile_commands.json either with CMake (-DCANE_GENERATE_COMPILE_COMMANDS, or smt similar), or `CodeChecker log` 3. `CodeChecker analyze` projects, paying attention to not forgetting the CodeChecker flag `--verbose debug_analyzer` (and enabling your checker ofc), and piping the output to a file 4. Create a `CodeChecker server`, `CodeChecker store` the results, and stare at the web gui for hours. Its very pretty btw ;) Csa-testbench is a work in progress, so I guess you can expect more in the future :) Thanks for your work, even through a few annoyances, very much appreciated! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D50488/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D50488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
