This patch set makes it possible to use clang based tools, such as
the clangd completion engine, regardless of our choice of compiler
for the actual kernel build.
Most of the fine details are included in the patch header for the
first patch (since we'd like them to appear in the kernel history so
they can help future archaeologists).
Daniel Thompson (2):
clang-tools: Generate clang compatible output even with gcc builds
Makefile: Enable clang-tidy and clang-analyzer for gcc builds
Makefile | 11 ++--
scripts/clang-tools/gen_compile_commands.py | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
base-commit: a111daf0c53ae91e71fd2bfe7497862d14132e3e
--
2.35.1
It is now possible use clang-tidy and clang-analyzer even if your primary
compiler is gcc. Remove the checks that prevent gcc builds from using
these tools.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <[email protected]>
---
Makefile | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 9ea6867aaf9c..0afef56d8203 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1901,17 +1901,11 @@ targets += $(extmod_prefix)compile_commands.json
PHONY += clang-tidy clang-analyzer
-ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
quiet_cmd_clang_tools = CHECK $<
cmd_clang_tools = $(PYTHON3) $(srctree)/scripts/clang-tools/run-clang-tools.py $@ $<
clang-tidy clang-analyzer: $(extmod_prefix)compile_commands.json
$(call cmd,clang_tools)
-else
-clang-tidy clang-analyzer:
- @echo "$@ requires CC=clang" >&2
- @false
-endif
# Scripts to check various things for consistency
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
2.35.1
The limitations of the compilation db are not limited to the kernel.
Why shouldn't the change be made in the llvm project ?
Tom
On 6/28/22 5:27 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> This patch set makes it possible to use clang based tools, such as
> the clangd completion engine, regardless of our choice of compiler
> for the actual kernel build.
>
> Most of the fine details are included in the patch header for the
> first patch (since we'd like them to appear in the kernel history so
> they can help future archaeologists).
>
> Daniel Thompson (2):
> clang-tools: Generate clang compatible output even with gcc builds
> Makefile: Enable clang-tidy and clang-analyzer for gcc builds
>
> Makefile | 11 ++--
> scripts/clang-tools/gen_compile_commands.py | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: a111daf0c53ae91e71fd2bfe7497862d14132e3e
> --
> 2.35.1
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 06:19:09AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> The limitations of the compilation db are not limited to the kernel.
>
> Why shouldn't the change be made in the llvm project ?
I'd rather answer the question why should it be in the kernel ;-).
That's somewhat easier to answer because the kernel does have some
unusual properties:
1. It makes heavy use of kernel command line options, especially
when compared to most user space components where the default
compiler flags are something very simple ("-g -O2" plus include
directories).
2. The kernel provides it's own tooling to generate the compilation
database. For example, if tools like codechecker added features to
their front end to mitigate this problem[1] the kernel wouldn't
benefit from them anyway.
3. Rules like `make clang-analyzer` generate *and* consume the
compilation database in a single pass. That makes it impossible to
run fixup tools between generating the database and consuming
it.
However going back to the original question:
> Why shouldn't the change be made in the llvm project ?
clang can (and probably will) learn about some of the newer gcc options
over time. However that doesn't actually help much since all that
achieves is a game of whack-a-mole where clang has to constantly play
catch up or the tooling will break.
Some other aspects could be added to the various different projects that
use the compilation database that would improve things (better automatic
handling of --target for example). That sort of change should still
peacefully coexist with an approach based on gen_compile_commands.json
though.
Daniel.
[1] Currently they don't workaround it automatically. They just imply
that you may have to "fine tune" compile_commands.json after
generating it:
https://codechecker.readthedocs.io/en/latest/usage/#step-7-fine-tune-analysis-configuration
> On 6/28/22 5:27 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > This patch set makes it possible to use clang based tools, such as
> > the clangd completion engine, regardless of our choice of compiler
> > for the actual kernel build.
> >
> > Most of the fine details are included in the patch header for the
> > first patch (since we'd like them to appear in the kernel history so
> > they can help future archaeologists).
> >
> > Daniel Thompson (2):
> > clang-tools: Generate clang compatible output even with gcc builds
> > Makefile: Enable clang-tidy and clang-analyzer for gcc builds
> >
> > Makefile | 11 ++--
> > scripts/clang-tools/gen_compile_commands.py | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > base-commit: a111daf0c53ae91e71fd2bfe7497862d14132e3e
> > --
> > 2.35.1
> >
>