[splint-discuss] Tolerance for compiler extensions

[Matthias Hawran]

Hi Oliver

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).

Thanks

Matthias

Oliver Betz wrote:

>Matthias Hawran wrote:
>
>[I wrote some time ago]
>
>  
>
>>>and assembler blocks (#pragma asm/endasm) which are really bad for
>>>the parser.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Oliver
>  
>