bb3976df48
Backport https://golang.org/cl/113715 and https://golang.org/cl/113716: cmd/go: don't pass -compiler flag to vet Without this running go vet -compiler=gccgo causes vet to fail. The vet tool does need to know the compiler, but it is passed in vetConfig.Compiler. cmd/go, cmd/vet, go/internal/gccgoimport: make vet work with gccgo When using gccgo/GoLLVM, there is no package file for a standard library package. Since it is impossible for the go tool to rebuild the package, and since the package file exists only in the form of a .gox file, this seems like the best choice. Unfortunately it was confusing vet, which wanted to see a real file. This caused vet to report errors about missing package files for standard library packages. The gccgoimporter knows how to correctly handle this case. Fix this by 1) telling vet which packages are standard; 2) letting vet skip those packages; 3) letting the gccgoimporter handle this case. As a separate required fix, gccgo/GoLLVM has no runtime/cgo package, so don't try to depend on it (as it happens, this fixes golang/go#25324). The result is that the cmd/go vet tests pass when using -compiler=gccgo. Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/114516 From-SVN: r260913
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.