Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] Makefile: Use make variables for static checker configuration

On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:14:02PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:

On 4/21/26 05:23, David Gibson wrote:

...

Our cppcheck and clang-tidy rules don't really follow normal Makefile conventions. Usually any commands other than the very basics have their binary specified in a variable so it can be overridden on the command line if they're in an unusual location. Implement that for $(CPPCHECK) and $(CLANG_TIDY)

Likewise flags to tools usually have their own Make variable. Do the same with $(CLANG_TIDY_FLAGS) and $(CPPCHECK_FLAGS). Note that these only have the options specifically for the static checker, not compiler flags which we are also supplying to the static checker - those are derived from FLAGS / CFLAGS / CPPFLAGS as before.

As part of that we change the probing for --check-level=exhaustive from being run as part of the cppcheck target, to being run when we build the CPPCHECK_FLAGS variable. That doesn't make any real difference now, but will make things nicer if we need multiple cppcheck targets in future (e.g. for passt-repair).

Signed-off-by: David Gibson --- Makefile | 32 +++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index f697c12b..17e70d22 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -174,21 +174,27 @@ docs: README.md done < README.md; \ ) > README.plain.md +CLANG_TIDY = clang-tidy +CLANG_TIDY_FLAGS = -DCLANG_TIDY_58992 + clang-tidy: $(PASST_SRCS) - clang-tidy $^ -- $(filter-out -pie,$(FLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)) \ - -DCLANG_TIDY_58992 + $(CLANG_TIDY) $^ -- $(filter-out -pie,$(FLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)) \ + $(CLANG_TIDY_FLAGS) -cppcheck: $(PASST_SRCS) $(HEADERS) - if cppcheck --check-level=exhaustive /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; then \ - CPPCHECK_EXHAUSTIVE="--check-level=exhaustive"; \ - else \ - CPPCHECK_EXHAUSTIVE=; \ - fi; \ - cppcheck --std=c11 --error-exitcode=1 --enable=all --force \ +CPPCHECK = cppcheck +CPPCHECK_FLAGS = --std=c11 --error-exitcode=1 --enable=all --force \ --inconclusive --library=posix --quiet \ - $${CPPCHECK_EXHAUSTIVE} \ --inline-suppr \ - --suppress=missingIncludeSystem \ + $(shell if $(CPPCHECK) --quiet --check-level=exhaustive /dev/null; then \ + echo "--check-level=exhaustive"; \ + else \ + echo ""; \ + fi)

Perhaps we can add a reusable function to check flags:

check_flag = $(shell $(1) $(2) >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo $(2))

Then $(call check_flag, $(CPPCHECK) /dev/null, --check-level=exhaustive)

We could, but that seems orthogonal to what I'm trying to accomplish here.

...

+ --suppress=missingIncludeSystem \ --suppress=unusedStructMember \ - $(filter -D%,$(FLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)) -D CPPCHECK_6936 \ - $^ + -D CPPCHECK_6936 + +cppcheck: $(PASST_SRCS) $(HEADERS) + $(CPPCHECK) $(CPPCHECK_FLAGS) \ + $(filter -D%,$(FLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)) $^ \ + $^

You have duplicate '$^' here.

Oops, that's a bug. -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson