[splint-discuss] Tolerance for compiler extensions
matthias.hawran at trialog.com
Thu Sep 25 05:39:12 EDT 2003
Thanks for your quick answer...
Well the embedded code is in existing code I don't "really" want to modify.
Anyway, yes I was also looking into pc-lint (as suggested by other people).
Oliver Betz wrote:
>Matthias Hawran wrote:
>[I wrote some time ago]
>>>and assembler blocks (#pragma asm/endasm) which are really bad for
>>>I know how to hide these constucts from Splint but I would really
>>>dislike it (see below).
>>I read the whole thread, but i didn't find / undestand what is your
>>construct to hide (#pragma asm/endasm) from splint. As i'm developping
>>with embedded software compilers, it's hard to avoid this construct.
>You have to put it in separate files and #include it :-( since the
>Splint parser doesn't survive the asm code.
>To avoid trouble with nonstandard "embedded constructs", I strongly
>suggest to consider buying PC-Lint from Gimpel. It's not free (210EUR
>at www.kessler.de) but saves _much_ more time than it costs (if your
>work time counts)! You might search also for other messages about PC-
>Lint in this mailing list.
>Read the PC-Lint manual and you will find that Gimpel also doesn't
>love the embedded extensions ("Compiler writers have shown no dearth
>of creativity in their invention of new syntax" - ROFL), but is
>realistic enough to accept them instead of fighting against them.
>You also might be confronted with the MISRA rules - PC-Lints checks
>most of them (as long as static code check is able to test the rule).
>Some of them are reasonable even if you are not forced to apply them.
More information about the splint-discuss