Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30451
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Static analysis tool? |
| Date | 2021-04-16 13:54 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <s5cti6$nj3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <s5co8v$ck0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s5cq5d$13j$1@dont-email.me> <s5crtl$3cv$1@gioia.aioe.org> <s5ct5l$k8h$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/16/2021 1:47 PM, Don Y wrote: > I suspect it may be "beyond your charter" but an interesting > exercise might be to show an "initial implementation", note > the number of faults found (manually or with tools) in contrast > with a refactored implementation (though refactored BEFORE the > analysis was done). The point being to show how coding styles > (designs?) can impact the quality of the code. > > "Here's a huge piece of spaghetti code. Note the number of > errors... Now, the same (functionally) code written in a > better style..." You can also suggest mechanizing testing -- and the consequences it has on how you structure the code so that it can be tested in that way. This is particularly helpful in embedded design where it's too easy to write code that *requires* hardware to run properly (yet, chances are, many of the algorithms could be tested without that hardware if the hardware dependencies were isolated). I write most of my OSs and drivers so that I can run them in an interpreter or simulator. Catch the obvious bugs where it's easy to do so (running at DC).
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-16 15:24 -0400
Re: Static analysis tool? Helmut Giese <hgiese@ratiosoft.com> - 2021-04-16 21:44 +0200
Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 12:56 -0700
Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-16 16:26 -0400
Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 13:47 -0700
Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Static analysis tool? Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2021-04-16 22:54 +0200
Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 14:20 -0700
Re: Static analysis tool? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2021-04-17 01:04 -0700
Re: Static analysis tool? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2021-04-17 10:09 +0200
Re: Static analysis tool? Michael Kellett <mk@mkesc.co.uk> - 2021-04-17 10:45 +0100
Re: Static analysis tool? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-17 12:51 +0200
Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-17 10:34 -0400
Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-05-02 11:41 -0400
Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-05-02 08:49 -0700
csiph-web