Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 47326: / /trunk/tools/: checkhf-v2.pl

[Bill Meier <wmeier () newsguy com>]

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 <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe