> Tommy Vercetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Yeah, but for more than just STL, and opensource. C++ checker that > | is going to work for instance for KDE. > | Wonder why they use proprietary parser, >
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Most of the tools I know of are either "research projects" (which > means that they basically "die" when the professor get promoted or the > students graduate; they are lots of them out there) or are/ use > proprietary tools. > > We need to get GCC/g++ to a competing level of usefulness but the road > is not quite that straight. > Yes, twice. Among the things that you need are: - detailled source code correspondence for every TREE node, - you want to know whether a TREE node represents something that was compiler generated as opposed to written in the source (e.g. for cast operations) - you most likely want an unlowered representation of the C++ source (and that will be the real hard part) - you don't want the frontend to optimize anything, e.g no folding (ideally you want both the folded and unfolded expression) - you might want to know whether a certain TREE node was the result of a macro expansion I used a very old version of GCC (3.0.1) as the frontend for some static checker. We succeeded in hacking in support for some of the above but C++ was a royal pain because of lowering. Florian
