On 1/28/2013 3:31 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
Tangentially, CppCheck [1] has support for custom checks using
plugins. I've never had time to investigate properly, but I suspect
that implementing the three check scripts (checkhf, checkAPIs,
checkfiltername) as CppCheck plugins would be a major win, primarily
because we'd get real C grammar parsing for free.
Cheers,
Evan
[1] http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/
After looking at the cppcheck docs about writing rules & sampling the
developer's cppcheck forum a bit, lets just say that I don't really get
a warm feeling about trying to do our special tests with cppcheck.
The basic mechanism for adding rules appears to be nothing more than
using regexs to pick out patterns on a tokenised version of the source
program.
One can write rules using C++ code to traverse a tokenised version of
the code; This doesn't seem much better.
I didn't see anything about plugins (other than cppcheck being used as a
plugin by various IDE's). Maybe I missed something....
I imagine that there's much more capability if I want to really dig into
the code and see how the existing capability is provided and how more
comples rules might be written.
OTOH, using the CLang library[1] sounds quite interesting. It might be
that it's possible to fairly easily do what is needed.
[1]http://amnoid.de/tmp/clangtut/tut.html
Bill
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
