================ @@ -7,6 +7,24 @@ Both provide a way of driving the analyzer, detecting compilation flags, and gen CodeChecker is more actively maintained, provides heuristics for working with multiple versions of popular compilers and it also comes with a web-based GUI for viewing, filtering, categorizing and suppressing the results. Therefore CodeChecker is recommended in case you need any of the above features or just more customizability in general. +Machine-readable output +----------------------- + +For a direct analysis of a source file, the ``clang`` driver can write a SARIF report that is suitable for automation and AI agents:: + + $ clang --analyze --analyzer-output sarif -o report.sarif source.c + +``--analyzer-output`` selects the report format. +The available formats are ``html``, ``plist``, ``plist-multi-file``, ``plist-html``, ``sarif``, ``sarif-html``, and ``text``. +``sarif`` writes a SARIF JSON report to the path specified by ``-o``; ``sarif-html`` also creates HTML files for interactive inspection. +The default format is ``plist``. + +This direct form analyzes a translation unit. +For project-wide analysis, use a tool such as CodeChecker or scan-build to drive the individual compiler invocations. ---------------- steakhal wrote:
LLVM tooling should always come before 3rd party tools. ```suggestion For project-wide analysis, use a tool such as scan-build or CodeChecker to drive the individual compiler invocations. ``` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209519 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
