honggyu.kim added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12906#274724, @o.gyorgy wrote:
> Hi, > > You are right the diff is is based on the hash. We already tried to > use an earlier hash generator (before the patch was introduced), which > generates a slightly different plist, that is why the current version > does not work with the patch. > We will fix CodeChecker to use new hash tag introduced in the final > patch (we did not change it so far because we didn't know what will be > the accepted naming convention and plist format). Hi, thanks for the explanation. I will try again when it is modified based on the final patch. > We use LD_PRELOAD technique the log all the compiler calls, so no CC > or CXX environment variable orverride is necessary. > With the 'export CODECHECKER_VERBOSE=debug' enviromnet variable you > can see the analyzer commands. I just cross-compiled Linux kernel using CodeChecker but I don't get the proper analysis result. I have fixed cross-compilation issue by adding --analyzer-target option to scan-build in http://reviews.llvm.org/D10356. Could you please explain more about LD_PRELOAD technique? I would like to more understand how it works. Kind regards, Honggyu http://reviews.llvm.org/D12906 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
