PC Lint vs. splint
JeanneP
between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
on their preference?
Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
dissatisfaction?
I have a more specific question, too, for users of PC Lint. I was just
browsing the mailing list archives for splint, and found a mention
where splint will complain about the following:
>>>
UINT8 n;
static foo(void) {
n = 5;
}
<<<
because 5 is an int instead of an unsigned 8 bit int. Workarounds for
this in the code are just ugly style wise, like casting (which may
hide a real problem) or assigning n = '\0x05'. When that warning is
turned off, a valid warning is also surpressed, as in this case:
>>>
UINT8 n;
UINT16 k;
static foo(void) {
n = k;
}
<<<
How does PC Lint handle these cases?
Thanks,
Jeanne
(not my real email address - this account was set up long ago)
Peter
"JeanneP" <jpet...@harris.com> wrote in message
news:8e5676f9.04112...@posting.google.com...
> I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding
> between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
> time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
> on their preference?
>
> Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
> PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
> dissatisfaction?
>
too far down the splint route.
Peter
Dave Hansen
>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding
>between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
>time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
>on their preference
PC-lint is an awesome tool, and cheap. Splint (lclint) is a good
tool, and free.
If you want to lint C++, PC-lint will do a good job of this. AFAIK,
splint is C only.
>
>Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
>PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
>dissatisfaction?
FWIW, I've used PC-lint for years (since the late 1980's), and have
only played with lclint (precursor to splint), so I may not be the
responder you're looking for.
>
>I have a more specific question, too, for users of PC Lint. I was just
>browsing the mailing list archives for splint, and found a mention
>where splint will complain about the following:
>>>>
>UINT8 n;
>
>static foo(void) {
> n = 5;
>}
><<<
>
>because 5 is an int instead of an unsigned 8 bit int. Workarounds for
I would be surprised if splint flagged that. Have you tried it?
At a PPOE I used a compiler that would flag
extern void fn(unsigned char);
fn(0);
because converting the int (0) to unsigned char might lose significant
bits. But that (and your example) are beyond picky -- they're just
plain wrong.
>this in the code are just ugly style wise, like casting (which may
>hide a real problem) or assigning n = '\0x05'. When that warning is
Assuming you mean '\x05'...
That wouldn't make sense because '\x05' is every bit as much an int as
5 is.
>turned off, a valid warning is also surpressed, as in this case:
>
>>>>
>UINT8 n;
>UINT16 k;
>
>static foo(void) {
> n = k;
>}
><<<
>
>How does PC Lint handle these cases?
Here is a slightly modified version of your test code runt through
PC-lint:
>>>--- begin included file ---
C:\Dave>type ltst.c
typedef unsigned char UINT8;
typedef unsigned short UINT16;
UINT8 n, m;
UINT16 k;
static foo(void) {
m = 5;
n = k;
}
C:\Dave>lint-nt -u ltst.c
PC-lint for C/C++ (NT) Ver. 8.00q, Copyright Gimpel Software 1985-2004
--- Module: ltst.c
_
static foo(void) {
ltst.c 7 Info 808: No explicit type given symbol 'foo', int assumed
_
n = k;
ltst.c 9 Info 734: Loss of precision (assignment) (16 bits to 8
bits)
_
}
ltst.c 10 Warning 533: function 'foo(void)' should return a value
(see line
7)
ltst.c 7 Info 830: Location cited in prior message
--- Wrap-up for Module: ltst.c
Warning 528: Symbol 'foo(void)' (line 7, file ltst.c) not referenced
ltst.c 7 Info 830: Location cited in prior message
>>>--- end included file ---
The "-u" option specifies a "unit lint," so messages such as "no main"
are suppressed.
Note I had to add the typedefs. The "m=5" line did not generate a
message, but "n=k" did. Also note the fact that foo was declared with
implicit int was noted, as well as the fact it does not return a
value, and was not used, even though declared static.
Making some slight modifications produces this result:
>>>--- begin included file ---
C:\Dave>type ltst.c
typedef unsigned char UINT8;
typedef unsigned short UINT16;
UINT8 n, m;
UINT16 k;
void foo(void) {
m = 5;
n = k & 0xFF;
}
C:\Dave>lint-nt -u ltst.c
PC-lint for C/C++ (NT) Ver. 8.00q, Copyright Gimpel Software 1985-2004
--- Module: ltst.c
C:\Dave>
>>>--- end included file ---
I.e., no messages. PC-lint is smart enough to see you've purposely
chopped off the MSB of k before storing it in n, so it generates no
message. A cast would work as well.
Two features that set PC-lint apart from splint (or any other lint
AFAIK) are its customization features and its flexibility in
selectively suppressing messages.
The former is indidpensible when dealing with compilers for small
embedded targets (dealing with things like in-line assembly and
special syntax for I/O registers).
The latter lets you suppress a message for an entire lint session, a
single file, between a particular pair of braces, on a single line,
within a single expression, or for a set of symbols. I can expand on
this if you're interested.
Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Meindert Sprang
news:41a38a44....@News.individual.net...
> On 23 Nov 2004 10:43:47 -0800, jpet...@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote:
> >I have a more specific question, too, for users of PC Lint. I was just
> >browsing the mailing list archives for splint, and found a mention
> >where splint will complain about the following:
> >>>>
> >UINT8 n;
> >
> >static foo(void) {
> > n = 5;
> >}
> ><<<
> >
> >because 5 is an int instead of an unsigned 8 bit int. Workarounds for
>
> I would be surprised if splint flagged that. Have you tried it?
I did, and indeed, splint complains about it. Splint also complains about
things like "if (n < 5)" when n is unsigned.
Meindert
Grant Edwards
Yup. IMO, splint is pretty much useless unless. You either
have to disable so many warnings that it lets bugs through, or
you have to put in a half-dozen typecasts in every line of
code. The sheer unreadability of the latter will probably
create more bugs than turning off the warnings.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I think my CAREER
at is RUINED!!
visi.com
Grant Edwards
> I would be surprised if splint flagged that. Have you tried it?
I have, and it does unless you tell it to consider all integer
types equivalent. As was posted earlier, that then disable
warnings for things like this:
uint8_t b;
uint32_t l;
[...]
b = l;
> because converting the int (0) to unsigned char might lose
> significant bits. But that (and your example) are beyond
> picky -- they're just plain wrong.
I thought so when I posted it to the splint mailing list.
Nobody really seemed to care.
>>this in the code are just ugly style wise, like casting (which
>>may hide a real problem) or assigning n = '\0x05'. When that
>>warning is
>
> Assuming you mean '\x05'...
>
> That wouldn't make sense because '\x05' is every bit as much an int as
> 5 is.
Splint doesn't think so.
>>UINT8 n;
>>UINT16 k;
>>
>>static foo(void) {
>> n = k;
>>}
>>How does PC Lint handle these cases?
>
> Here is a slightly modified version of your test code runt through
> PC-lint:
>
> Note I had to add the typedefs. The "m=5" line did not generate a
> message, but "n=k" did.
That's what a reasonable person would expect. That's not what
split does. It considers the two lines sematically equivalent
since '5' is an 'int'. You either get warnings on both or
neither. At the point where splint generates the warning, the
only information left is that the RHS was an 'INT'. It has
discarded the information that it was a literal that will fit
into 8 bits. To get reasonable behavior from splint would
require extensive modifications.
> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously expensive,
but I should check again.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... Get me a GIN
at and TONIC!!...make it
visi.com HAIR TONIC!!
Grant Edwards
>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
>
> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously
> expensive,
Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node
locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! This ASEXUAL
at PIG really BOILS
visi.com my BLOOD... He's
so... so... URGENT!!
Dave Hansen
>On 2004-11-23, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
>>
>> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously
>> expensive,
>
>Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node
>locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons...
Maroons? That's a bit harsh, though I have never understood their
FlexeLint pricing, even if it is distributed in source form.
Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 binaries, and
the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen speculation it could
run in DOSEMU or wine or something similar. Never tried it myself,
though. They have a 30-day money back guarantee...
Grant Edwards
>>>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
>>>
>>> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously
>>> expensive,
>>
>>Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node
>>locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons...
>
> Maroons? That's a bit harsh,
Really? I'll have to pay attention to my Bugs Bunny cartoons
closer -- I didn't think it was a very harsh term.
> though I have never understood their FlexeLint pricing, even
> if it is distributed in source form.
The fact that it's in obfuscated source files doesn't increase
the value to the customer, so why should the price be higher?
The attitude that an app for Linux should cost 5X the price for
the same app on XP (a much more expensive system both SW-wise
and HW-wise) seems quite silly and outdated. Just the type of
thing that would cause Bugs to exclaim "What a maroon!"
I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too
many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and
I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a
program I already paid for once.
> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2
> binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen
> speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something
> similar.
Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a
lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold.
Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
> Never tried it myself, though. They have a 30-day
> money back guarantee...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Is this my STOP??
at
visi.com
Dan Henry
>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding
>between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
>time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
>on their preference?
>
>Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
>PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
>dissatisfaction?
At the time I started contracting for a new client, I was a PC Lint
user. I needed to lint the client's code looking for (among other
things) header files that were included without necessity. Not
wanting the client to pay for PC Lint, I decided to try splint. After
a moderately length setup session, I discovered that (to my knowledge)
splint does not report such things (unused header files). Having
discovered that, and being unimpressed with splint in general compared
to PC Lint, I recommended that the client purchase PC Lint and after
others evaluated it also, they ended up with a site license.
I don't think you can go wrong with PC Lint. IMHO, it's small price
is worth it compared to what I've experienced of the free stuff.
--
Dan Henry
Peter
machine except that it's not quite so convenient. I copy it from the Linux
machine to Windows to get the worst errors out then return it.
Regards,
Peter
Grant Edwards
> There is nothing to stop you from checking your Linux code on
> your Windows machine except that it's not quite so convenient.
> I copy it from the Linux machine to Windows to get the worst
> errors out then return it.
I would, but I really don't want to reward Gimple's
short-sightedness.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! The PINK SOCKS were
at ORIGINALLY from 1952!! But
visi.com they went to MARS around
1953!!
Andy Sinclair
>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding
>between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
>time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
>on their preference?
>
>Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
>PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
>dissatisfaction?
Splint was good, but it did need a lot of setting up and had some
problems with unwanted warning that are hard to individually suppress
(such as the example you gave).
PCLint is better, especially for strong typing, and it is easier to
tailor to your needs.
I you have time to spare, I would try splint first. If it is being
bought for your work, I would get PCLint.
>[snipped example]
>How does PC Lint handle these cases?
PCLint can be configured to ignore the assignment of constants when it
does its type checking (I use this setup to avoid this very problem).
Andy
JeanneP
> On 23 Nov 2004 10:43:47 -0800, jpet...@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote:
>
> >I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding
> >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup
> >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment
> >on their preference
>
> PC-lint is an awesome tool, and cheap. Splint (lclint) is a good
> tool, and free.
>
> If you want to lint C++, PC-lint will do a good job of this. AFAIK,
> splint is C only.
Thank you everyone for your responses. It looks to me as though PC Lint
is what I'll recommend at work. The vast majority of the code is in C,
and there's a tiny percentage of C++. However, that may change.
I have another question for those who use either tool; how the speed of
a lint run compare to building your code? Is it faster? Slower? How
much?
I'm asking because we have code that's shared across multiple projects.
When you check in a file that is used by another project, that project
gets updated too. The advanages are that everyone gets to benefit from
the updates right away, but the downsides are that what works in one
project may break another. Maybe someone used a #defined value from a
non-shared file in a shared file, or something similar. Folks usually
don't bother building all of the other projects that share their file
before checking in code, due to looming deadlines on their own projects.
They usually get away with it, but it sure can be a headache when you
have to make sure updating your sandbox won't cause a break before you
actually update it. It's impractical to ask people to always check
every affected build before checking in updates, because it would take
several hours to build every flavor of every project, during which time
there may have been more updates. Of course we have an automated builder
so it doesn't get out of control. But, if lint is fast enough, people
could lint the other projects before checking in their code.
Of course, I could always try it once we have it. But, knowing this
ahead of time could help make the argument to purchase.
Thanks again,
Jeanne
(not my real email address)
Dave Hansen
[...]
>
>I have another question for those who use either tool; how the speed of
>a lint run compare to building your code? Is it faster? Slower? How
>much?
Lint is _much_ faster. It's often so quick that my knee-jerk reaction
is "Oops, what went wrong?... Oh, it's just done."
The current project I'm working on is fairly small. About 6k of code
using avr-gcc. Consisting of 7 .c and 7 .h files totaling about 112k
of code on the disk. Building and linking the object files using make
takes about 3 seconds (2.77 according to the system clock) on my
system. Linting everything with "make lint" takes less than a second
(0.36 seconds, identical to performing a make with an up-to-date
build). Removing make from the equation and linting everything from
the command line takes even less time (0.16 seconds). These are crude
timings, performed by running batch files that look something like:
time < nul
make
time < nul
PC-lint has the ability to create "lint object" files so you only have
to lint what actually has changed. But IME linting an entire project
takes so little time that it's not been worthwhile to use them.
Dave Hansen
>On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <id...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>> though I have never understood their FlexeLint pricing, even
>> if it is distributed in source form.
>
>The fact that it's in obfuscated source files doesn't increase
>the value to the customer, so why should the price be higher?
Exactly my point. Which is why I don't understand it.
[...]
>I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too
>many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and
>I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a
>program I already paid for once.
I think you're reading too much into the phrase "non-floating," or
maybe "A single user on a computer workstation." AFAIK, there is no
software licensing management for FlexeLint (there certainly is none
for PC-lint).
The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license
is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If
your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace
any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program
under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask
Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to
deal with.
>
>> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2
>> binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen
>> speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something
>> similar.
>
>Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a
>lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold.
In at least one sense you're right. If you can't be bothered to run
lint, it won't do you any good. But IMHO, the greater pain is trying
to work _without_ lint.
>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using
PC-lint. But they still don't come close.
Grant Edwards
>>I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too
>>many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and
>>I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a
>>program I already paid for once.
>
> I think you're reading too much into the phrase
> "non-floating," or maybe "A single user on a computer
> workstation." AFAIK, there is no software licensing management
> for FlexeLint (there certainly is none for PC-lint).
>
> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation"
> license is that it forbids you to access the program through a
> network.
That's ridiculous. I can't ssh in from home and work? I can't
work with an X window displayed on a different machine?
Bah. Somebody should drag Gimpel into the 1990's.
> If your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you
> could replace any part or all of the system and legally
> continue to use the program under the terms of the license.
> But, of course, IANAL. You could ask Gimpel if you have any
> questions. IME, they're very reasonable to deal with.
Except for the pricing and license terms, apparently.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I was in a HOT
at TUB! I was NORMAL! I was
visi.com ITALIAN!! I enjoyed th'
EARTHQUAKE!
Rich Walker
[snip]
> I think you're reading too much into the phrase "non-floating," or
> maybe "A single user on a computer workstation." AFAIK, there is no
> software licensing management for FlexeLint (there certainly is none
> for PC-lint).
>
> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license
> is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If
> your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace
> any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program
> under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask
> Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to
> deal with.
So I actually have to be physically logged-in to that very machine with
my keyboard, mouse and monitor connected to it? I can't use an
X-Terminal with it? If /usr is mounted from a remote machine, I can't
use it? What kind of maroon thinks up these things...
>
>>
>>> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2
>>> binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen
>>> speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something
>>> similar.
>>
>>Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a
>>lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold.
>
> In at least one sense you're right. If you can't be bothered to run
> lint, it won't do you any good. But IMHO, the greater pain is trying
> to work _without_ lint.
>
>>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
>
> Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using
> PC-lint. But they still don't come close.
CFLAGS := -D__USE_GNU=1 -D__USE_MISC=1 -D__USE_BSD=1 -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -O -Wall -W -DNDEBUG
CFLAGS += -Wcast-align -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wsign-compare
CFLAGS += -Wno-unused -Wundef -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute
does pretty well for me.
Mind you, I have a .splintrc in every directory as well - typical
contents:
-I/usr/src/linux/include/ -I/usr/src/rtai/include/ -I/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.2.3/include/ -I/usr/include
-realcompare
-predboolint
-boolops
-exportlocal
-fcnuse
-exitarg
-booltype bool
-fullinitblock
+charindex
+charint
-formattype
-castfcnptr
-shiftimplementation
-Dsizeof(x)=(size_t)(sizeof(x))
-D_GNU_SOURCE=1
-D__GNUC__=3
-D__GNUC_MINOR__=2
-D__STDC__
-D__signed__=
-D__const__=const
-D__inline__=inline
-D__attribute__(x)=
-D__const=const
-D__restrict=
-DKERNEL
-D__builtin_va_list=int
(Running splint against kernel sources is ... interesting)
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | r...@shadow.org.uk
technical director 251 Liverpool Road |
need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
Dave Hansen
>On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <id...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation"
>> license is that it forbids you to access the program through a
>> network.
>
>That's ridiculous. I can't ssh in from home and work? I can't
>work with an X window displayed on a different machine?
Again, IANAL, but I believe you can. You are still the only user, and
you are running the program on that one workstation, and that
workstation isn't accessing the program over a network. The license
doesn't say you are limited to a single keyboard or display. As long
as you don't try to run the software on your local machine...
>
>Bah. Somebody should drag Gimpel into the 1990's.
Well, they do have floating licenses, with the cost delta for
additional simultaneous users at or below the cost for a single
workstation license. Of course, those have an even higher entry
point, and are limited to a LAN...
None of which explains why the cost of licensing FlexeLint is so much
greater than PC-lint. My best guess is that support costs might be
higher because of the distribution method.
But even at 4x the cost, that just means it takes a month to pay for
itself rather than a week.
Dave Hansen
wrote:
>id...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) writes:
[...]
>> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license
>> is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If
>> your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace
>> any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program
>> under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask
>> Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to
>> deal with.
>
>So I actually have to be physically logged-in to that very machine with
>my keyboard, mouse and monitor connected to it?
It doesn't say that.
> I can't use an
>X-Terminal with it?
It doesn't say that either.
> If /usr is mounted from a remote machine, I can't
>use it?
If FlexeLint is installed under /usr, I believe it does say that.
> What kind of maroon thinks up these things...
Just an average Joe (or above-average Jim) trying to make a living, I
guess. I expect the FlexeLint licensing policies are costing Gimpel
customers. I'm beginning to think it's not costing him any profits,
however...
[...]
>>>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
>>
>> Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using
>> PC-lint. But they still don't come close.
>
>CFLAGS := -D__USE_GNU=1 -D__USE_MISC=1 -D__USE_BSD=1 -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -O -Wall -W -DNDEBUG
>CFLAGS += -Wcast-align -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wsign-compare
>CFLAGS += -Wno-unused -Wundef -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute
>
>does pretty well for me.
Probably fair, as Grant said.
>
>Mind you, I have a .splintrc in every directory as well - typical
>contents:
[...]
I don't know much about splint, so this didn't mean much to me. The
project.lnt file for the project I'm current working on looks like
this:
--- begin included file ---
// Compiler definitions
//
c:\lint\lnt\co-gnu3.lnt // 2.95.3 and later
-si2 // Change int and ptr sizes for AVR
-sp2
//c:\lint\lnt\au-misra.lnt // MISRA checking
// Header file locations
//
-i"C:\WinAVR\avr\include"
-i"C:\WinAVR\lib\gcc\avr\3.4.1\include"
// Project definitions
//
-d__AVR_ATmega16__ // Compiler does this from MCU definition
-dOSC_FREQ=12000000 // Make file derives this from HZ
-dDBUG=0
-dHIGH_CAP=0
-dDISABLE_VBATT_TEST=0
// Error reporting suspension
//
// Some GNU macros return a value from bracketed expressions.
//
-emacro(155,__LPM*)
// Interrupt vectors must be extern but aren't referenced
//
-esym(714,__vector_*)
-esym(765,__vector_*)
// Global macros in header files might not all be used
// Global typedefs might not all be used
//
-esym(755,EE_*,IO_*,ADC_*,ADCSR_*)
-esym(756,S8,U8,S16,U16,S32,U32)
--- end included file ---
The options probably do what you expect. The -esym options disable a
message for particular symbols, and -emacro disables the message
during the invocation of the specified macros.
For example, I have a header file that defines typedefs for S8, U8,
etc. Nowhere in this project do I have a signed 32-bit integer.
Without the last line in the file shown above, I'd get a message 756
(global typedef not referenced) message for S32.
I don't have the MISRA checking options enabled (yet -- they're
commented out). We're at the prototype stage at this point.
>(Running splint against kernel sources is ... interesting)
The subtitle of Chapter 14 (Living with Lint) of the PC-lint/FlexeLint
manual is "Don't Kill the Messenger."
Paul E. Bennett
> I'm asking because we have code that's shared across multiple projects.
> When you check in a file that is used by another project, that project
> gets updated too. The advanages are that everyone gets to benefit from
> the updates right away, but the downsides are that what works in one
> project may break another. Maybe someone used a #defined value from a
> non-shared file in a shared file, or something similar. Folks usually
> don't bother building all of the other projects that share their file
> before checking in code, due to looming deadlines on their own projects.
> They usually get away with it, but it sure can be a headache when you
> have to make sure updating your sandbox won't cause a break before you
> actually update it. It's impractical to ask people to always check
> every affected build before checking in updates, because it would take
> several hours to build every flavor of every project, during which time
> there may have been more updates. Of course we have an automated builder
> so it doesn't get out of control. But, if lint is fast enough, people
> could lint the other projects before checking in their code.
Sounds like you may also benefit from installing a decent version control
system with sand-boxing capabilities. That way you would not affect the
other projects in a haphazard way. They could get to benefit from updates
of the common source tree when they were good and ready for it.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@a...>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 .........NOW AVAILABLE:- HIDECS COURSE......
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 .... see http://www.feabhas.com for details.
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
Kevin D. Quitt
<p...@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sounds like you may also benefit from installing a decent version control
Check out subversion: http://subversion.tigris.org/
(And it's free.)
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list
Oliver Betz
[PC-Lint vs. splint]
>Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to
>PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the
>dissatisfaction?
Yes, me. Splint has (had?) problems with some non-ANSI (legacy)
"extensions" of embedded compilers. Look at the Splint mailing list
archive or search for my posting here dated 2003-05-17, Message-ID
<3ec5f99...@z1.oliverbetz.de>.
And the already mentioned problems when assigning literals to U8 are
really annoying in embedded environments where this happens often.
Oliver
--
Oliver Betz, Muenchen (oliverbetz.de)
Rufus V. Smith
"Grant Edwards" <gra...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:41a3e059$0$85085$a186...@visi.com...
> On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <id...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too
> many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and
> I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a
> program I already paid for once.
>
If the company even exists by the time that happens!
It's too bad there's not a law requiring companies discontinuing software
known to be in current use to place it in the public domain...
Rufus