george.karpenkov added a comment. High-level feedback: mixing of abstraction levels is wrong for the "bundled" documentation. This might also work better as a blogpost, if you want to jump from topic to topic.
================ Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:11-13 +This document will describe the frontend of the Static Analyzer, basically +everything from compiling the analyzer from source, through it's invocation up +to the beginning of the analysis. It will touch on topics such as ---------------- NoQ wrote: > First of all, "frontend" is, as far as i understand, a weird word to use with > respect to this library in general. I think what they were trying to say was > something like "The Static Analyzer-specific part of the C Front End's > command-line flags" (as opposed to Driver flags), but calling this UI "The > Frontend" is a bit weird. We probablyshould try to somehow avoid confusion > with the "compiler frontend" concept throughout this document. +1, not sure what the word "frontend" adds here. IMO "frontend" in folder/library name is more of a relic in this case. ================ Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:57-88 +Following this, the compilation goes on as usual. The fastest way of obtaining +the analyzer for development is by configuring CMake with the following options: + +* Use the `Ninja` build system +* Build in `Release` with asserts enabled (Only recommended for slower + computers!) +* Build shared libraries ---------------- NoQ wrote: > For the above reason i think this text deserves a better document to be put > into; this is definitely important to know for a much wider audience than > developers of libStaticAnalyzerFrontend. Strictly speaking for tests it's better to use `check-clang-analyzer`. Also again strictly speaking it's not possible to compile analyzer without compiling `clang`. ================ Comment at: docs/analyzer/developer-docs/FrontendLibrary.rst:85 + -fuse-ld=lld \ + ../llvm + ---------------- Information on compiling LLVM IMO should not be here. Also, why Sphinx? Why X86? Why LLD and not gold? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58065/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58065 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
