From egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu  Tue Dec  4 07:54:03 2007
From: egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu (Yegor Ryabkov)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:54:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [splint-discuss] Treating different libraries in a different way
Message-ID: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783643.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>

Hello,

I'm using Splint to check a single module in a bigger project, and the
module is using some external libraries, which I don't want to check.
Is there a way to set up Splint so that it will analyze only the libraries
from a given directory (and its subdirectories), leaving all the outside
libraries unanalized (yet included)?

One way to solve this is to wrap every #include for an outside library
with /*@ignore@*/ ... /*@end@*/, but I'd like to find a way to solve this
issue in general, if it's possible.

Splint manual, section 14 gives no clues on that.

Thanks in advance,
Egor.


From egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu  Tue Dec  4 07:24:30 2007
From: egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu (Yegor Ryabkov)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:24:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [splint-discuss] Treating different libraries in a different way
Message-ID: <44961.213.126.128.209.1196781870.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>

Hello,

I'm using Splint to check a single module in a bigger project, and the
module is using some external libraries, which I don't want to check.
Is there a way to set up Splint so that it will analyze only the libraries
from a given directory (and its subdirectories), leaving all the outside
libraries unanalized (yet included)?

One way to solve this is to wrap every #include for an outside library
with /*@ignore@*/ ... /*@end@*/, but I'd like to find a way to solve this
issue in general, if it's possible.

Thanks in advance,
Egor.


From egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu  Tue Dec  4 07:53:54 2007
From: egor.ryabkov at sioux.eu (Yegor Ryabkov)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:53:54 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [splint-discuss] Selective warning disabling
Message-ID: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783634.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>

Hello,

Is there a way to suppress a specific type of warning for a block of code?

/*@i<n>@*/ looks like a solution, but it's still not a perfect way; is
there any other means to do this?

"Appendix C -> Annotations -> Suppressing warnings" only contains i, i<n>,
t and t<n>.

Thanks in advance,
Egor.


From lyma at cct-tech.com.sg  Mon Dec 10 00:14:02 2007
From: lyma at cct-tech.com.sg (Ma Li Yu)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:14:02 +0800
Subject: [splint-discuss] About 8051 sfr in Splint
Message-ID: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F64377FBC2@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>

Hi, All

 

I just started to learn how to use Splint in my project. Currently I
faced below issue: 

 

Splint 3.0.1.6 --- 11 Feb 2002

 

ECO_51.H(156,10): Parse Error: Inconsistent function declaration: sfr :

               int. (For help on parse errors, see splint -help
parseerrors.)

*** Cannot continue.

 

I knew that sfr is special function register in 8051, but it is not
standard for Splint. So what can I do in Splint to avoid such warning? 

 

Regards 

MA LIYU Mark 

R&D Software Engineer 

CCT Tech Singapore Pte Limited 

Tel: 65-6240 6823 

Fax: 65-6444 7848 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/pipermail/splint-discuss/attachments/20071210/7ac97228/attachment-0001.html 

From lionel_debroux at yahoo.fr  Mon Dec 10 01:08:11 2007
From: lionel_debroux at yahoo.fr (Lionel Debroux)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:08:11 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [splint-discuss] About 8051 sfr in Splint
In-Reply-To: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F64377FBC2@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>
Message-ID: <479160.60526.qm@web52905.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi,

First, the version of splint you're using is old. You should upgrade to the latest version, though
that won't solve your problem.

Now, on to your problem.

A similar issue, on a different ISA, was discussed on this ML in August. Turning the following
definition:

#define PCADDR  (*(unsigned char volatile far*)0xFD8)

into something such as

#ifdef S_SPLINT_S
    extern unsigned char PCADDR;
// Undefine "far", if that applies to your ISA, because it's non-C.
#define far
#else
#define PCADDR  (*(unsigned char volatile far*)0xFD8)
#endif

seemed to work.
Tell us if it works for you as well :)


Regards, Lionel Debroux.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail innove : interface hyper pratique, messenger int?gr?, couleurs - http://mail.yahoo.fr

From lyma at cct-tech.com.sg  Mon Dec 10 01:59:15 2007
From: lyma at cct-tech.com.sg (Ma Li Yu)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:59:15 +0800
Subject: [splint-discuss] About 8051 sfr in Splint
Message-ID: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F64377FBF5@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>

Hi, 

Firstly, did u know which the latest version for Window platform is? It seems its new version is for Linux system.

Secondly, I have solved my problem by using your method. Thank you very much!!!

Below is my solution:
#ifdef S_SPLINT_S
#define sfr (unsigned char xdata *)
#endif

Regards 
MA LIYU Mark 
R&D Software Engineer 
CCT Tech Singapore Pte Limited 
Tel: 65-6240 6823 
Fax: 65-6444 7848 
-----Original Message-----
From: splint-discuss-bounces at cs.virginia.edu [mailto:splint-discuss-bounces at cs.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Lionel Debroux
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:08 PM
To: Discussions about the Splint annotation-assisted static analysis project
Subject: Re: [splint-discuss] About 8051 sfr in Splint

Hi,

First, the version of splint you're using is old. You should upgrade to the latest version, though
that won't solve your problem.

Now, on to your problem.

A similar issue, on a different ISA, was discussed on this ML in August. Turning the following
definition:

#define PCADDR  (*(unsigned char volatile far*)0xFD8)

into something such as

#ifdef S_SPLINT_S
    extern unsigned char PCADDR;
// Undefine "far", if that applies to your ISA, because it's non-C.
#define far
#else
#define PCADDR  (*(unsigned char volatile far*)0xFD8)
#endif

seemed to work.
Tell us if it works for you as well :)


Regards, Lionel Debroux.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail innove : interface hyper pratique, messenger int?gr?, couleurs - http://mail.yahoo.fr
_______________________________________________
splint-discuss mailing list
splint-discuss at mail.cs.virginia.edu
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/splint-discuss




From lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de  Wed Dec 12 04:16:11 2007
From: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de (Ludolf Holzheid)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:16:11 +0100
Subject: [splint-discuss] yywrap missing
In-Reply-To: <4f1d760b0712120327w28407564o2d0eb91e9dc44f78@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4f1d760b0712120327w28407564o2d0eb91e9dc44f78@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071212121610.GA32726@svr5.bihl-wiedemann.de>

On Wed, 2007-12-12 16:57:07 +0530, Pramila V wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I too got the below mentioned error. Open the respective file for example
> csanner.c goto the function yywrap as given in error message.
> 
> if ( yywrap() )
> {
> }
> 
> Change this to as given below,
> 
> if(yywrap)
> {
> }

Um, what are you trying to do?

You seem to replace a call to a function by the address of this
function. I don't know what happens if the linker can't find yywrap(),
but I *think* you used a very obscure (and non portable) way to write
`if (0)' ...

The right way to solve this problem was

 o to provide an (empty) yywrap() (see the flex man page), or
 o to link against libfl, or
 o to use `%option noyywrap' for flex.

Ludolf

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ludolf Holzheid             Tel:    +49 621 339960
Bihl+Wiedemann GmbH         Fax:    +49 621 3392239
Flo?w?rthstra?e 41          e-mail: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de
D-68199 Mannheim, Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------


From lyma at cct-tech.com.sg  Wed Dec 12 19:22:28 2007
From: lyma at cct-tech.com.sg (Ma Li Yu)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:22:28 +0800
Subject: [splint-discuss] About onlytrans
Message-ID: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F6437A9300@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>

Hi,

 

Currently I faced below issue:

 

pdis.c: (in function Store_Key)

pdis.c(115,3): Only storage assigned to unqualified static:

                  Key_ptr = (KEY_BUFFERING
*)malloc(sizeof(KEY_BUFFERING))

  The only reference to this storage is transferred to another reference
(e.g.,

  by returning it) that does not have the only annotation. This may lead
to a

  memory leak, since the new reference is not necessarily released. (Use

  -onlytrans to inhibit warning)

 

This is definition of Key_ptr. It was defined outside of function
Store_Key:

Static KEY_BUFFERING * Key_ptr;

 

It tries to tell me that it could lead to a memory leak. But I did not
understand it. The strange thing is that splint would not complain any
more after I changed to below code:

KEY_BUFFERING *  temp_ptr; //Define inside function Store_Key

....

temp_ptr = (KEY_BUFFERING *)malloc(sizeof(KEY_BUFFERING));

Key_ptr = temp_ptr;

 

But I think it is not optimized. Above code is simpler and take less
code size. What did u think? 

 

Regards 

MA LIYU Mark 

R&D Software Engineer 

CCT Tech Singapore Pte Limited 

Tel: 65-6240 6823 

Fax: 65-6444 7848 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/pipermail/splint-discuss/attachments/20071213/66130d2f/attachment.html 

From giridhar at appaji.net  Fri Dec 14 02:03:14 2007
From: giridhar at appaji.net (Y Giridhar Appaji Nag)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:33:14 +0530
Subject: [splint-discuss] Sources for the documentation
Message-ID: <20071214100313.GD4296@loktak.hq.netapp.com>

Hi Folks,

Where can I find the sources to the manuals (manual.htm and manual.pdf
in splint-3.1.2.src.tgz and http://www.splint.org/manual/) distributed
with splint?  I looked in the CVS and did not find anything that looked
like source expect the manual.doc MS word document.  Is manual.doc the
source?

Also, info at splint.org doesn't seem to work anymore.  Wondering if it
would be updated by the webmasters of splint.org :)

Giridhar

-- 
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.cs.virginia.edu/pipermail/splint-discuss/attachments/20071214/97a1750c/attachment.bin 

From lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de  Fri Dec 14 12:11:18 2007
From: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de (Ludolf Holzheid)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:11:18 +0100
Subject: [splint-discuss] yywrap missing
In-Reply-To: <4f1d760b0712140339i25b47e4bg1d92e5a98bed4653@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4f1d760b0712120327w28407564o2d0eb91e9dc44f78@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071212121610.GA32726@svr5.bihl-wiedemann.de>
	<4f1d760b0712140339i25b47e4bg1d92e5a98bed4653@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071214201118.GA26897@svr5.bihl-wiedemann.de>

On Fri, 2007-12-14 17:09:47 +0530, Pramila V wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am a new bee for splint. I would like to compile the source files which is
> available in different directory and interlinked each other. One single
> project.
> 
> Eg :
> 
> Main/source/aa.c
> main/include/aa.h
> 
> Like this many subdirectories under main.
> 
> Can u help me regarding this.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

Do you want to compile something with splint? Splint is no compiler,
but a static code analyzer. It does not produce object files or
executables, but may detect programming mistakes the compiler doesn't
recognize.

Ludolf


P.S.: Please send your questions regarding splint to the splint
      mailing list instead of to my personal mail address.

P.S.: I don't see the relation between your mail and its subject.

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ludolf Holzheid             Tel:    +49 621 339960
Bihl+Wiedemann GmbH         Fax:    +49 621 3392239
Flo?w?rthstra?e 41          e-mail: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de
D-68199 Mannheim, Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------


From lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de  Fri Dec 14 12:15:25 2007
From: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de (Ludolf Holzheid)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:15:25 +0100
Subject: [splint-discuss] Selective warning disabling
In-Reply-To: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783634.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>
References: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783634.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>
Message-ID: <20071214201525.GB26897@svr5.bihl-wiedemann.de>

On Tue, 2007-12-04 16:53:54 +0100, Yegor Ryabkov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Is there a way to suppress a specific type of warning for a block of code?
> 
> /*@i<n>@*/ looks like a solution, but it's still not a perfect way; is
> there any other means to do this?
> 
> "Appendix C -> Annotations -> Suppressing warnings" only contains i, i<n>,
> t and t<n>.

You may use most (all) of the splint flags in code annotations. See
section 1.3.2 of the manual.

Ludolf

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ludolf Holzheid             Tel:    +49 621 339960
Bihl+Wiedemann GmbH         Fax:    +49 621 3392239
Flo?w?rthstra?e 41          e-mail: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de
D-68199 Mannheim, Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------


From lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de  Fri Dec 14 12:24:02 2007
From: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de (Ludolf Holzheid)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:24:02 +0100
Subject: [splint-discuss] Treating different libraries in a different way
In-Reply-To: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783643.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>
References: <48931.213.126.128.209.1196783643.squirrel@webmail.onlinespamfilter.nl>
Message-ID: <20071214202402.GC26897@svr5.bihl-wiedemann.de>

On Tue, 2007-12-04 16:54:03 +0100, Yegor Ryabkov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm using Splint to check a single module in a bigger project, and the
> module is using some external libraries, which I don't want to check.
> Is there a way to set up Splint so that it will analyze only the libraries
> from a given directory (and its subdirectories), leaving all the outside
> libraries unanalized (yet included)?

Take a look at `-sysdirs' and the `-sysdirerrors' flags.

Ludolf

-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ludolf Holzheid             Tel:    +49 621 339960
Bihl+Wiedemann GmbH         Fax:    +49 621 3392239
Flo?w?rthstra?e 41          e-mail: lholzheid at bihl-wiedemann.de
D-68199 Mannheim, Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------


From ptp at lysator.liu.se  Sat Dec 15 01:27:35 2007
From: ptp at lysator.liu.se (Tommy Pettersson)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:27:35 +0100
Subject: [splint-discuss] About onlytrans
In-Reply-To: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F6437A9300@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>
References: <E1C381B3F784714FA930ABE6DCD4F6437A9300@sgbm01.SG.CCT.GRP>
Message-ID: <20071215092735.GA15645@static-81.216.50.98.addr.tdcsong.se>

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:22:28AM +0800, Ma Li Yu wrote:
> Currently I faced below issue:
> 
> pdis.c(115,3): Only storage assigned to unqualified static:
> 
>                   Key_ptr = (KEY_BUFFERING*)malloc(sizeof(KEY_BUFFERING))
> 
>   The only reference to this storage is transferred to another reference
> (e.g., by returning it) that does not have the only annotation. This may lead
> to a memory leak, since the new reference is not necessarily released. (Use
> -onlytrans to inhibit warning)
> 
> This is definition of Key_ptr. It was defined outside of function
> Store_Key:
> 
> Static KEY_BUFFERING * Key_ptr;
> 
> It tries to tell me that it could lead to a memory leak. But I did not
> understand it. The strange thing is that splint would not complain any
> more after I changed to below code:
> 
> 
> KEY_BUFFERING *  temp_ptr; //Define inside function Store_Key
> 
> ....
> 
> temp_ptr = (KEY_BUFFERING *)malloc(sizeof(KEY_BUFFERING));
> Key_ptr = temp_ptr;
> 
> 
> But I think it is not optimized. Above code is simpler and take less
> code size. What did u think? 

I think the optimizer in the compiler will completely remove the
redundant temp_ptr, but that's not the point here.

If you don't put splint annotations before the pointers to tell
splint how you intend to manage the memory, splint will assume
some defaults, and check the code based on these assumptions.
There are also limitations to how much splint can check global
variables; splint checks that sanity is preserved between the
entry and the exit of a function, but it knows little or nothing
about the run-time call graph, and thus the state of a global
variable at function entry.

Anyway, the automatic variable temp_ptr will default to Only,
which makes splint happily transfer the ownership of the
allocated memory from malloc to temp_ptr. I don't remember what
static globals default to, but it's probably some kind of shared
type, i.e., when you assign Key_ptr=temp_ptr, temp_ptr is
holding on to the ownership while Key_ptr just becomes an alias.
This means 1) you must free(temp_ptr) before temp_ptr goes out
of scope, or pass it on to some other Only pointer 2) you can
not free(Key_ptr).

Whit the temp_ptr "trick" you'll get warnings from splint at the
function exit that temp_ptr is not freed, and that Key_ptr may
reference Null storage. So it doesn't really solve anything.

In the original case, the Only pointer returned from malloc is
assigned directly to the unannotated Key_ptr, which has no
responsibility to free the memory, so the ownership of the
memory is lost -- there are no longer any pointer you can use to
free the memory (the way splint sees it, because you have not
told splint that Key_ptr is an Only pointer). That is why splint
reports a memory leak.

If you annotate Key_ptr with /*@only@*/, things will work more
like you expect, but then you will instead get a warning about
"Only storage Key_ptr not released before assignment, a memory
leak has been detected". This is because, as you remember,
splint does not know about the state of global variables at
function entry, so it assumes Key_ptr already holds a pointer to
some memory, which will be lost and cause a memory leak when you
overwrite it with the new pointer from malloc. There is also
still the warning about Key_ptr may become Null.

Try this:

  static /*@only@*/ /*@null@*/ buf_t * Key_ptr;
  
  ...
  
  if (Key_ptr)
    free( Key_ptr );
  Key_ptr = malloc( BUF_SIZE );
  
Now splint is confident that no memory is leaked.


There are other memory management models with other annotations
than Only in splint, which may be more appropriate in your case,
and there are ways to annotate functions to explains to splint
that parameters are unassigned at function entry and must be
assigned before function exit. Such annotations will catch
errors where functions are called in inappropriate ways, like:

  ptr = malloc( size );
  do_allocate( &ptr );

An if (p) free(p) trick in do_allocate would probably not be so
good. It would be preferred that splint warned about do_allocate
being called in a place where ptr was already assigned.
Unfortunately I think there are some limitations on global
variables with those kind of annotations.


You should first try to learn the different ways splint thinks
memory can be managed safely. This will make the warning
messages much more understandable. They you must realize splint
is limited in the way it can model memory management, since it
can only do static checks. There are many common ways of
managing memory that splint can not fully check. There is often
a choice between using memory management that splint understands
to get full checking, or use a more convenient model that splint
can only partly check is correct.


-- 
Tommy Pettersson <ptp at lysator.liu.se>

From beroset at mindspring.com  Mon Dec 31 06:52:20 2007
From: beroset at mindspring.com (Ed Beroset)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:52:20 -0500
Subject: [splint-discuss] string concatenation patch
Message-ID: <47790224.1020108@mindspring.com>

Over the weekend I was trying to fix up splint so that it wouldn't die 
with a parser error for code like the following:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <inttypes.h>

int main(void)
{
     printf("The answer is %" PRIu32 ".\n", 42);
     return 0;
}

For those who don't recall, the ISO C 99 standard added printf and scanf 
format specifiers to inttypes.h.  There are two issues here.  The first 
is that the inttypes.h that is in splint's standard.h doesn't include 
these definitions.  I tried a few things, but failed in that attempt so 
far.  (Maybe somebody can show me how to do this.)

The second issue is that a C compiler, according to section 5.1.1.2 of 
the standard, should concatenate adjacent string literals.  That means 
that even when the statement is written as

printf("The answer is %" "d" ".\n", 42);

splint doesn't understand it.  I believe I have solved that issue and 
the patch is pasted to the bottom of this email message, but here's the 
logic behind it.  I looked and the grammar file already accepts multiple 
strings like that, but the format specifier checking wasn't able to 
handle the multiple strings.  What I did was to change the 
exprNode_stringLiteral() function in exprNode.c so that it now merges 
the strings before creating the node.  Since the same function is also 
invoked for wide strings, it should work either way if I've done things 
correctly.  Some confirmation of that would be useful.

Also, I tried running splint on its own source code, but was unable to 
get it to parse the original file.  I think I have the annotations 
correct, but some hint as to how to check at least this file with splint 
would also be helpful to me.  Thanks for the great tool.  I hope the 
patch (which was created from the 3.1.2 source tarball) is useful.

Ed

--- src/exprNode.c.orig	2007-12-31 09:02:46.000000000 -0500
+++ src/exprNode.c	2007-12-31 09:14:48.000000000 -0500
@@ -865,10 +865,52 @@
    size_t len = size_fromInt (size_toInt (cstring_length (t)) - 2);
    char *ts = cstring_toCharsSafe (t);
    char *s = cstring_toCharsSafe (cstring_create (len + 1));
+  char *ss = s;
+  bool escape = FALSE;
+  bool betweenStrings = FALSE;
+  int i;

    llassert (*ts == '\"' && *(ts + len + 1) == '\"');
-  strncpy (s, ts+1, len);
-  *(s + len) = '\0';
+  /* from ISO/IEC 9899 5.1.1.2 Translation phases, phase 6,
+     "Adjacent string literal tokens are concatenated."
+
+     This code does the concatenation as part of the copying
+  */
+  ts++;
+  for (i=0; i < len; i++)
+    {
+      switch (*ts)
+	{
+	case '\\':
+	  *ss++ = *ts++;
+	  escape = TRUE;
+	  /*@switchbreak@*/ break;
+	case '\"':
+	  betweenStrings = !escape;
+	  if (!betweenStrings)
+	    {
+	      *ss++ = *ts;
+	    }
+	  ts++;
+	  escape = FALSE;
+	  /*@switchbreak@*/ break;
+	case ' ':
+	case '\n':
+	case '\t':
+	  if (!betweenStrings)
+	    {
+	      *ss++ = *ts;
+	    }
+	  ts++;
+	  escape = FALSE;
+	  /*@switchbreak@*/ break;
+	default:
+	  *ss++ = *ts++;
+	  escape = FALSE;
+	  /*@switchbreak@*/ break;
+	}
+    }
+  *ss = '\0';
    cstring_free (t);
    return exprNode_rawStringLiteral (cstring_fromCharsO (s), loc);
  }


From aaron.davies at gmail.com  Mon Dec 31 12:57:19 2007
From: aaron.davies at gmail.com (Aaron Davies)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:57:19 -0500
Subject: [splint-discuss] recognize typedef'd void?
Message-ID: <c4e763ac0712311257r1580d7f7g527595776e3f2d0a@mail.gmail.com>

is it just me, or should this produce no warnings?

typedef void V;
static V foo(){return;}
int main(/*@unused@*/int argc,/*@unused@*/char**argv){foo();return 0;}
-- 
Aaron Davies
aaron.davies at gmail.com

From Michael.Wojcik at MicroFocus.com  Mon Dec 31 14:41:55 2007
From: Michael.Wojcik at MicroFocus.com (Michael Wojcik)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:41:55 -0800
Subject: [splint-discuss] recognize typedef'd void?
In-Reply-To: <c4e763ac0712311257r1580d7f7g527595776e3f2d0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c4e763ac0712311257r1580d7f7g527595776e3f2d0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11352F9641010A418AD5057945A3A6598B498F@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com>

> From: splint-discuss-bounces at cs.virginia.edu 
> [mailto:splint-discuss-bounces at cs.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Aaron Davies
> Sent: Monday, 31 December, 2007 15:57
> 
> is it just me, or should this produce no warnings?
> 
> typedef void V;
> static V foo(){return;}
> int main(/*@unused@*/int argc,/*@unused@*/char**argv){foo();return 0;}

Yes, that looks like a Splint bug; it should recognize that V is a
typedef for void, and so not warn about a missing return value for
foo(). Probably not a difficult fix, but I don't have the Splint source
handy to check.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised Splint doesn't warn about the lack of a
prototype for foo() here, but that's another matter.

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Principal Software Systems Developer, Micro Focus