1a2f01efa6
Update the Go library to the 1.10beta1 release.
Requires a few changes to the compiler for modifications to the map
runtime code, and to handle some nowritebarrier cases in the runtime.
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/86455
gotools/:
* Makefile.am (go_cmd_vet_files): New variable.
(go_cmd_buildid_files, go_cmd_test2json_files): New variables.
(s-zdefaultcc): Change from constants to functions.
(noinst_PROGRAMS): Add vet, buildid, and test2json.
(cgo$(EXEEXT)): Link against $(LIBGOTOOL).
(vet$(EXEEXT)): New target.
(buildid$(EXEEXT)): New target.
(test2json$(EXEEXT)): New target.
(install-exec-local): Install all $(noinst_PROGRAMS).
(uninstall-local): Uninstasll all $(noinst_PROGRAMS).
(check-go-tool): Depend on $(noinst_PROGRAMS). Copy down
objabi.go.
(check-runtime): Depend on $(noinst_PROGRAMS).
(check-cgo-test, check-carchive-test): Likewise.
(check-vet): New target.
(check): Depend on check-vet. Look at cmd_vet-testlog.
(.PHONY): Add check-vet.
* Makefile.in: Rebuild.
From-SVN: r256365
34 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext
34 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext
Vet is a tool that checks correctness of Go programs. It runs a suite of tests,
|
|
each tailored to check for a particular class of errors. Examples include incorrect
|
|
Printf format verbs and malformed build tags.
|
|
|
|
Over time many checks have been added to vet's suite, but many more have been
|
|
rejected as not appropriate for the tool. The criteria applied when selecting which
|
|
checks to add are:
|
|
|
|
Correctness:
|
|
|
|
Vet's checks are about correctness, not style. A vet check must identify real or
|
|
potential bugs that could cause incorrect compilation or execution. A check that
|
|
only identifies stylistic points or alternative correct approaches to a situation
|
|
is not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Frequency:
|
|
|
|
Vet is run every day by many programmers, often as part of every compilation or
|
|
submission. The cost in execution time is considerable, especially in aggregate,
|
|
so checks must be likely enough to find real problems that they are worth the
|
|
overhead of the added check. A new check that finds only a handful of problems
|
|
across all existing programs, even if the problem is significant, is not worth
|
|
adding to the suite everyone runs daily.
|
|
|
|
Precision:
|
|
|
|
Most of vet's checks are heuristic and can generate both false positives (flagging
|
|
correct programs) and false negatives (not flagging incorrect ones). The rate of
|
|
both these failures must be very small. A check that is too noisy will be ignored
|
|
by the programmer overwhelmed by the output; a check that misses too many of the
|
|
cases it's looking for will give a false sense of security. Neither is acceptable.
|
|
A vet check must be accurate enough that everything it reports is worth examining,
|
|
and complete enough to encourage real confidence.
|