[splint-discuss] staticinittrans

[Jonathan and Caroline Moore]

Splint is a wonderful tool but I could use some help with a few last
+checks warnings in a project.

Please go easy on me I'm not CompSci just an engineer trying to make
sure the compiler is forced to do what I intend.

I don't understand the unqualified static, implicitly and inconsistent
way parts of the splint warning.

Google hasn't helped either - just people saying use -staticinittrans
or other code markup which I feel defeats the point of trying to
understand WHY the static analysis is complaining.

How do I get around this or initialise a pointer in a struct in a way
that splint likes. Everything I've tried seems to generate an error
similar to these below or warnings about losing memory pointers
without deallocating them

Deep thanks in advance.

Jonathan

P.S. I'd appreciate a cc on any replies - not sure I got the mailer
set up right.

WS867:Thu 23:1845:~:$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct {
       int *x;
} stL_t;

static int x[2] = {5, 10};

static stL_t stL = {
       x
};


int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
       printf("%s\n", argv[argc - 1]);
       printf("%d\n", stL.x[0]);
       return 0;
}
WS867:Thu 23:1845:~:$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -o test test.c
WS867:Thu 23:1845:~:$ ./test
./test
5
WS867:Thu 23:1845:~:$ splint +checks test.c
Splint 3.1.2 --- 07 May 2008

test.c:10:2: Unqualified static storage x used as initial value for implicitly
               only: stL.x = x
 Static storage is used as an initial value in an inconsistent way. (Use
 -staticinittrans to inhibit warning)

Finished checking --- 1 code warning

-- 
Jonathan (and Caroline)

Jonathan and Caroline Moore
JandCMoore at gmail.com (Jonathan)
CandJMoore at gmail.com (Caroline)
http://jandcmoore.googlepages.com/