GSoD: analyzer checker docs?

Tanya made this call for Google thing of Docs, which is like summer of code just for docs ( There's been a lot of work on checker docs in the Analyzer recently. Do we want to take this opportunity?

Like, if it gives us a nice, stylish, easy-to-understand, on-point description of what the checker thinks the user's code is doing and how bad does it think it is, it might be pretty neat.

Sounds like the thing we always needed in my opinion! The analyzer could really use some better docs in certain areas – speaking from personal experience, I always thought that I just need more time to learning about the codebase before being able to understand patches related to, for example, liveness analysis. It wasn’t until I attended Gábor Horváth’s advanced compilers lectures at my university, when I understood that that is in fact something that exists in the literature, and the thing that we have in the analyzer is “merely” an implementation of it. I really liked what he said during the Birds of a Feather meeting on EuroLLVM, is that we do have many things documented, but it’s scattered all over the place in youtube videos, cfe-dev mails, patch review discussions, bugzilla reports (especially before 2012) and the like. If under GSoD we could get this sorted out, get rid of most of HTML files we have on, and have an easy-to-navigate, easy-to-extend documentation for the long term, it would be far more inviting for newcomers as well. I might be biased, but the Clang Static Analyzer is very cool project, and I think if we made the transition from writing your first checker to making changes in the actual infrastructure a little easier, we would have a a lot easier time building a community around it.

Couple thoughts of mine, I haven’t read through the entire GSoD procedure thought.

I think we should try to focus the Google Summer of Documentation project on documenting aspects of the analyzer that would benefit our users. There are a lot more of them than there are of us analyzer developers!

One area that would be great to improve on is describing for our important checkers:

  • What bugs does the checker find?
  • Why are the bugs important?
  • How should the bugs be fixed?
  • How should false positives be suppressed?

The GSoD project is an amazing resource — we should take advantage of it to improve our users’ experience of the analyzer.


Mm, writing actual in-depth analyzer doc for developers in GSoD would be pretty hard unless we pick, say, Kristóf as our technical writer. Even throughout GSoC, where studends who spend 3 months working on the analyzer in practice, by the end of the summer they often don’t gather enough understanding to start writing this sort of docs. We can’t expect an outside technical writer (who’s not necessarily that much of a programmer) to dive into this so quickly.

I also feel that we don’t need someone else’s help with our documentation for developers: we’re writing good documentation ourselves, we just need to put it together somehow. It is the skill of writing documentation for regular users that, i think, we all are missing.

I don’t fully understand this either, but it’s pretty hard to imagine that somebody from outside would be able to quickly understand how Static Analyzer works and uses this understanding solely for describing how it works. Even a GSoC student doesn’t necessarily gather enough understanding throughout a summer of practical work on the analyzer to write such docs. On the other hand, about the docs that are scattered around - it’s bad that they’re scattered around, but they themselves aren’t that bad (well, at least, i arrogantly believe they aren’t that bad), just hard to find. I mean, they don’t look like something that somebody should write for us; we’ll probably do a better job writing in-depth docs because we’re writing it for ourselves and we know what we need.

Yup, consider me convinced.


Speaking of the user facing documentation, how would you feel about advertising CodeChecker as a GUI on the homepage of the analyzer? Currently it is only advertising XCode, which is only available on macOS, and also not part of the LLVM repository. This could benefit both new analyzer users on non-apple platforms and CodeChecker to gain more visibility (for bug reports, potential developers, etc). What do you think?

Kristóf Umann <> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. ápr. 20., Szo 5:13):

All right, i missed the deadline because i didn't keep track of it in my head. I still think it was a good idea to try, i guess let's try next year in a less hasty manner.