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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27604

Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations

From Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded
Subject Re: Source code static analysis tool recommendations
Date 2018-02-03 16:37 +0000
Organization PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID <p54og4$a65$1@reader2.panix.com> (permalink)
References <p52lfh$nrr$1@gioia.aioe.org> <teo97d1vcjb3g15npbtkci906cven11rf7@4ax.com> <p532dr$196u$1@gioia.aioe.org> <23oa7d9a3nks55apfgduiobie10ijob7bm@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2018-02-03, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:

> I haven't seen PC-Lint in many years, so I can't comment on that.
> Splint and cppcheck are free alternatives that are worth a look.  

I haven't tried splint it years, but it used to be completely
useless for real code.  It would warn you about things like this:


    uint8_t b;
    b = 1;

  or 

    uint8_t i,j;
    [...]    
    i = j+1;

The warning was because the expression on the RHS was of type "int"
(16 or 32 bits on the platforms I cared about) and was being truncated
by the assignment to an 8-bit wide LHS.

On small processors with only a few hundred bytes of RAM one tended to
use the smallest variable types possible, and as a result splint
produced thousands of meaningless warnings unless you typecast most of
your integer assignments -- which made the code completely unreadable.
    
I spent a few days hacking on splint to try to fix issues like
that but was told by the split developers that they didn't care to
incorporate fixes like mine because splint wasn't intended for use on
real code in the real world because it was solely an academic project
for use studying language concepts.

Have they since pulled their heads out of <whatever>?

-- 
Grant

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