I know this question has been asked here, however it was from 2010 and I was wondering if anybody knows of some recent ones made.
I'm looking into using a style checker to help enforce coding conventions at my current workplace. I see the following few options:
A nice flexible way to enforce difference style conventions exist. Vera++ looked interesting and extendable.
Use/hack Google's cpplint style checker (seems daunting)
get access to the parse tree (preferably the AST) of the current file and perform checks on that.
#3 seems the most flexible and wondering whether anyone knows of a program or way to hook into the AST?
Try xCode with clang and all warning on.
You can also make clang dump the AST.
CppCheck build an AST. And it also allows you to write addons, where you can get access to AST. But as stated above it may wipe necessary information needed to check style. My choice is to customize cpplint.
Related
I would like to generate some wrapper code based on C++ types. I basically would like to parse some C++ headers, get the types, classes and their fields defined in the headers, and generate some code based on them.
What would be the easiest way to parse C++ and get type information? I thought about using the Clang C++ parser, but I couldn't make a working hello world in a couple of hours, so I gave up for the time being.
Could you advise any other way to parse C++, or if Clang is the easiest solution, could you point me to a simple getting started guide to be able to parse C++ types with it?
(basically any technology would be ok, C++, Java, C#, etc., this would be part of a command line tool)
Clang is definitely the easiest option. Consider using cindex python bindings, it's pretty straightforward. Alternatively, you could get an older version of clang which still features an xml backend.
EDIT: the link above seems to be down, so here is a link to the google cache of it.
Another link suggested in the comments: http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2014/03/05/implementing-a-code-generator-with-libclang/
Unless your object is to verify correctness, or the code involves advanced template stuff, consider using the XML output of DOxygen or GCC_XML. Alternatively, consider clang, even if that's what you found too complex. Note that for clang it might be best to work in *nix-land.
If your generation tool is in Java, consider using the parser from the Eclipse CDT.
my set of dependencies are:
com.ibm.icu_4.4.2.v20110823.jar
org.eclipse.cdt.core_5.3.2.201202111925.jar
org.eclipse.equinox.common_3.6.0.v20110523.jar
(these are from an old Eclipse version, because I have a dependency on old java class versions), but taking from the latest CDT wil do.
parsing involves:
FileContent reader;
reader = FileContent.createForExternalFileLocation(fullPath);
IScannerInfo info = new ScannerInfo(definedSymbols, includePaths);
return GPPLanguage.getDefault().getASTTranslationUnit(reader, info, FilesProvider.getInstance(), null, 0,log);
This returns an IASTTranslationUnit that can be accessed through a Visitor pattern (ASTVisitor).
I cannot comment on the accuracy of the parsing in corner scenarios, because so far I've been generating code based on simple C++ structure definitions.
I want to use Shiny on a large-ish C++ code base, but I'd rather not add the required PROFILE_FUNC() calls to my source. I figure it's easy enough to write a script that for each source file, regex-searches for function definitions, adds a macro call just after the opening bracket and pipes the result to g++; but that seems an awfully obvious source-code instrumentation case, so much so I find it hard to believe no-one has come up with a better solution already.
Unfortunately, searching around I could only find references to LLVM / clang instrumentation and the odd research tool, which look like overly complicated solutions to my comparatively simple problem. In fact, there seems to be no straightforward way to perform simple automated code edits to C/C++ code just prior to compilation.
Is that so? Or am I missing something?
Update: I forgot to mention this "C++ code base" is a native application I am porting to Android. So I can use neither gprof (which isn't available on Android), Valgrind (which requires an older version of the NDK than what i'm using) nor the android-ndk-profiler (which is for dynamic libraries loaded by Android Activities, either Java or native, not plain executables). Hence my looking into Shiny.
Update 2: Despite previous claims I actually managed to build Valgrind on Android NDK r8e, so I settled on using it instead of Shiny. However I still think the original question is valid: isn't there any straightforward tool for effecting simple compile-time edits to C / C++ source files – some sort of macro preprocessor on steroids?
You can consider gprof or valgrind. If memory serves, gprof uses instrumentation and valgrind is a sampling-based profiler. Neither of them requires you to annotate source code.
You can use the android ndk profiler to profile C/C++ code
More info here
http://code.google.com/p/android-ndk-profiler/
You use gprof to analyse the results
My target is to make a program (using C++) which would take C source code as input and check for "SYNTAX ERRORS ONLY".
Now for this, do i need to know about Regular Expressions, Grammar generation and Parsers??
I would like to use tools like Yacc/Flex/Bison - but the problems i am facing are -
How to use these tools? I mean i am only scratching at the surface when i read about these tools - i feel clueless.
How can i use these tools in tandem with my C++ source code?
How "The Hell" do i Get Started with this?
Use somebody else's C parser. For example, the parser used by the clang project. http://clang.llvm.org/
Then you can focus on the other hard part of your problem: detecting errors.
To get started with Yacc and Lex (or the Gnu versions, Bison and Flex) I can recommend Tom Niemann's A Compact Guide to Lex & Yacc.
I also suggest that you have a look of other projects doing the same thing. The are often named with lint in their name, as http://www.splint.org/
It all depends on what kind of errors you want to check.
In any cases you certainly need to learn more about compiler architectures. This book is a reference http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/modern/c/
If you want to work at the syntactic level,
you certainly want to work with lex and Yacc.
This link may help you to get started with a working grammar (though outdated): http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ANSI-C-grammar-y.html
Less powerfull syntax checking can be done using regular expression. You can do less with regular expression than with an actual parser (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy). But it is certainly far more practical.
if you want to perform high level checking. Like "Does this group of function alway take const parameters ?" etc ... You can probably use GCC ability to dump abstract syntax trees (see http://digitocero.com/en/blog/exporting-and-visualizing-gccs-abstract-syntax-tree-ast). Checks other compilers or front-end as well. An abstract tree contains many information you can "check".
If you want to handle compilation errors: related to type checking etc... I can't help you, you probably want to look at other people projects before starting to write your own compiler.
see also:
http://decomp.ulb.ac.be/roelwuyts/playground/canalysistools/
http://wiki.altium.com/display/ADOH/Static+Code+Analysis+-+CERT+C+Secure+Code+Checking
Some people in my previous labs worked on C and C++ analysis and transformation
http://www.lrde.epita.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Transformers/
The project is now in standby, and has proved to be a complex subject even for people used to compiler writting (especially in the case of C++ transformation).
Finally your needs are maybe far simpler than this. Did you think about
FILE *output = popen("gcc -Wall my_c_file.c", "r");
(and then just checking the output of gcc)
How do you define "SYNTAX ERRORS ONLY"? If you just want to know what are the errors, why don't you call external gcc to perform a compilation and report the errors?
When you get a third-party library (c, c++), open-source (LGPL say), that does not have good documentation, what is the best way to go about understanding it to be able to integrate into your application?
The library usually has some example programs and I end up walking through the code using gdb. Any other suggestions/best-practicies?
For an example, I just picked one from sourceforge.net, but it's just a broad engineering/programming question:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/aftp/
I frequently use a couple of tools to help me with this:
GNU Global. It generates cross-referencing databases and can produce hyperlinked HTML from source code. Clicking function calls will take you to their definitions, and you can see lists of all references to a function. Only works for C and perhaps C++.
Doxygen. It generates documentation from Javadoc-style comments. If you tell it to generate documentation for undocumented methods, it will give you nice summaries. It can also produce hyperlinked source code listings (and can link into the listings provided by htags).
These two tools, along with just reading code in Emacs and doing some searches with recursive grep, are how I do most of my source reverse-engineering.
One of the better ways to understand it is to attempt to document it yourself. By going and trying to document it yourself, it forces you to really dive in and test and test and test and make sure you know what each statement is doing at what times. Then you can really start to understand what the previous developer may have been thinking (or not thinking for that matter).
Great question. I think that this should be addressed thoroughly, so I'm going to try to make my answer as thorough as possible.
One thing that I do when approaching large projects that I've either inherited or contributing to is automatically generate their sources, UML diagrams, and anything that can ease the various amounts of A.D.D. encountered when learning a new project:)
I believe someone here already mentioned Doxygen, that's a great tool! You should look into it and write a small bash script that will automatically generate sources for the application you're developing in some tree structure you've setup.
One thing that I've haven't seen people mention is BOUML! It's fantastic and free! It automatically generates reverse UML diagrams from existing sources and it supports a variety of languages. I use this as a way to really capture the big picture of what's going on in terms of architecture and design before I start reading code.
If you've got the money to spare, look into Understand for %language-here%. It's absolutely great and has helped me in many ways when inheriting legacy code.
EDIT:
Try out ack (betterthangrep.com), it is a pretty convenient script for searching source trees:)
Familiarize yourself with the information available in the headers. The functions you call will be declared there. Then try to identify the valid arguments and pre-/post-conditions of the functions, as those are your primary guidance (even if they are not documented!). The example programs are your next bet.
If you have code completion/intellisense I like opening up the library and going '.' or 'namespace::' and seeing what comes up. I always find it helpful, you can navigate through the objects/namespaces and see what functionality they have. This is of course assuming its an OOP library with relatively good naming of functions/objects.
There really isn't a silver bullet other than just rolling up your sleeves and digging into the code.
This is where we earn our money.
Three things;
(1) try to run the test or example apps available, set low debug levels, and walk through logs.
(2) use source navigator tool / cscope ( available both on windows and linux) and browse the code to understand the flow.
(3) also in parallel use gdb to walk into code while running test/example apps.
In a nutshell, I'm searching for a working autocompletion feature for the Vim editor. I've argued before that Vim completely replaces an IDE under Linux and while that's certainly true, it lacks one important feature: autocompletion.
I know about Ctrl+N, Exuberant Ctags integration, Taglist, cppcomplete and OmniCppComplete. Alas, none of these fits my description of “working autocompletion:”
Ctrl+N works nicely (only) if you've forgotton how to spell class, or while. Oh well.
Ctags gives you the rudiments but has a lot of drawbacks.
Taglist is just a Ctags wrapper and as such, inherits most of its drawbacks (although it works well for listing declarations).
cppcomplete simply doesn't work as promised, and I can't figure out what I did wrong, or if it's “working” correctly and the limitations are by design.
OmniCppComplete seems to have the same problems as cppcomplete, i.e. auto-completion doesn't work properly. Additionally, the tags file once again needs to be updated manually.
I'm aware of the fact that not even modern, full-blown IDEs offer good C++ code completion. That's why I've accepted Vim's lack in this area until now. But I think a fundamental level of code completion isn't too much to ask, and is in fact required for productive usage. So I'm searching for something that can accomplish at least the following things.
Syntax awareness. cppcomplete promises (but doesn't deliver for me), correct, scope-aware auto-completion of the following:
variableName.abc
variableName->abc
typeName::abc
And really, anything else is completely useless.
Configurability. I need to specify (easily) where the source files are, and hence where the script gets its auto-completion information from. In fact, I've got a Makefile in my directory which specifies the required include paths. Eclipse can interpret the information found therein, why not a Vim script as well?
Up-to-dateness. As soon as I change something in my file, I want the auto-completion to reflect this. I do not want to manually trigger ctags (or something comparable). Also, changes should be incremental, i.e. when I've changed just one file it's completely unacceptable for ctags to re-parse the whole directory tree (which may be huge).
Did I forget anything? Feel free to update.
I'm comfortable with quite a lot of configuration and/or tinkering but I don't want to program a solution from scratch, and I'm not good at debugging Vim scripts.
A final note, I'd really like something similar for Java and C# but I guess that's too much to hope for: ctags only parses code files and both Java and C# have huge, precompiled frameworks that would need to be indexed. Unfortunately, developing .NET without an IDE is even more of a PITA than C++.
Try YouCompleteMe. It uses Clang through the libclang interface, offering semantic C/C++/Objective-C completion. It's much like clang_complete, but substantially faster and with fuzzy-matching.
In addition to the above, YCM also provides semantic completion for C#, Python, Go, TypeScript etc. It also provides non-semantic, identifier-based completion for languages for which it doesn't have semantic support.
There’s also clang_complete which uses the clang compiler to provide code completion for C++ projects. There’s another question with troubleshooting hints for this plugin.
The plugin seems to work fairly well as long as the project compiles, but is prohibitively slow for large projects (since it attempts a full compilation to generate the tags list).
as per requested, here is the comment I gave earlier:
have a look at this:
Vim integration to MonoDevelop
for .net stuff at least..
OmniCompletion
this link should help you if you want to use monodevelop on a MacOSX
Good luck and happy coding.
I've just found the project Eclim linked in another question. This looks quite promising, at least for Java integration.
I'm a bit late to the party but autocomplpop might be helpful.
is what you are looking for something like intellisense?
insevim seems to address the issue.
link to screenshots here
Did someone mention code_complete?
http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1764
But you did not like ctags, so this is probably not what you are looking for...