Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27615

Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations

From Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de>
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded
Subject Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations
Date 2018-02-06 19:25 +0100
Message-ID <fdua92Fgm6rU1@mid.dfncis.de> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <p56mkp.2a0.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> <p577t1$o54$1@reader2.panix.com> <p5a8to.4v4.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> <fds3gtF1745U1@mid.dfncis.de> <p5bp9r$e0e$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 06.02.2018 um 09:34 schrieb David Brown:
> On 05/02/18 23:18, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>> Am 05.02.2018 um 18:48 schrieb Stefan Reuther:

>> Where on earth did you get that idea?  UINT32_C does not even _appear_
>> in the C99 standard.

> 7.20.4 "Macros for integer constants" (assuming the section number is
> the same for C99 and C11, which is where I looked).

C99 7.18.4.  Ah there it is.  Sorry, my bad for not finding that (or 
knowing about it off-hand).

But then Stefan's next statement is wrong.  There's no way this:

 > expands to nothing on a 32-bit architecture...

can be correct.  At the very least, UINT32_C(1) has to change the 
signedness of its constant argument, i.e. it has to expand to either of 
the following, or an equivalent:

	(uint_least32_t)1
	1u

And in both cases, both MISRA and PC-Lint _will_ accept that shift. 
Well, assuming the tool was configured correctly, that is.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Source code static analysis tool recommendations John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-02 13:32 -0800
  Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-02-02 18:24 -0500
    Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-02 17:13 -0800
      Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-02-03 03:40 -0500
        Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-03 11:45 +0100
        Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-02-03 16:37 +0000
          Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-04 10:18 +0100
            Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-02-04 15:12 +0000
              Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-05 18:48 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2018-02-05 23:18 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-06 09:34 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2018-02-06 19:25 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-06 22:53 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-02-06 21:34 -0500
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-07 09:06 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2018-02-05 23:32 -0800
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-06 09:34 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-06 10:23 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-06 19:05 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-06 23:02 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2018-02-07 02:02 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-07 09:21 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2018-02-08 00:57 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-08 10:46 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-07 20:04 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-07 20:54 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2018-02-08 18:58 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-09 09:17 +0100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-02-10 20:55 +1100
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-02-10 19:59 -0500
                Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2018-02-10 20:49 +1100

csiph-web