Re: checkapi

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:28 AM, Graham Bloice <graham.bloice () trihedral com>
wrote:

> Just thinking for this for about 30 secs, is there another way?  checkAPIs
> seems to be a very rudimentary (not meant in any derogatory way just
> because it's written in Perl :_)) static code analyser.  Is there any way
> an actual code analyser could be used with a configuration file listing the
> banned API's etc.?  I guess one issue with that approach is that all the
> static analysers I've used are quite slow, although that's maybe because I
> have them turned up to 11.

There are; someone (Evan?) suggested a couple of options a few years ago
but I guess no one had enough interest to do anything about it.  But either
my memory is wrong or my Google-fu isn't working well today because all I'm
finding is a suggestion from Sebastien way back in 2008 (I really thought
it was discussed more recently than that--and with more suggestions):

https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200805/msg00128.html

Of course I doubt such tools could fully replace checkAPIs: it has a lot of
custom stuff in there like ensuring various arrays are NULL terminated and
that hf fields are appropriate (writing the regex to match all the hf array
entries was all sorts of challenging fun :-)).

(You really should just come on over to the world of Perl; eventually
you'll wonder how you ever got along without it! ;-))

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe