PC Lint vs. splint

Started by JeanneP November 23, 2004
"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:41a3d830.1162635921@News.individual.net...
> On 23 Nov 2004 23:06:10 GMT, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: > >>On 2004-11-23, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: >> >>>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards, >>> >>> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously >>> expensive, >> >>Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node >>locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons... > > Maroons? That's a bit harsh, though I have never understood their > FlexeLint pricing, even if it is distributed in source form. > > Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 binaries, and > the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen speculation it could > run in DOSEMU or wine or something similar. Never tried it myself, > though. They have a 30-day money back guarantee... >
There is nothing to stop you from checking your Linux code on your Windows machine except that it's not quite so convenient. I copy it from the Linux machine to Windows to get the worst errors out then return it. Regards, Peter
On 2004-11-24, Peter <moocowmoo@newprovidence.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> There is nothing to stop you from checking your Linux code on > your Windows machine except that it's not quite so convenient. > I copy it from the Linux machine to Windows to get the worst > errors out then return it.
I would, but I really don't want to reward Gimple's short-sightedness. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! The PINK SOCKS were at ORIGINALLY from 1952!! But visi.com they went to MARS around 1953!!
JeanneP wrote:
>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment >on their preference? > >Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to >PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the >dissatisfaction?
I have previously used splint and currently use PCLint. Splint was good, but it did need a lot of setting up and had some problems with unwanted warning that are hard to individually suppress (such as the example you gave). PCLint is better, especially for strong typing, and it is easier to tailor to your needs. I you have time to spare, I would try splint first. If it is being bought for your work, I would get PCLint.
>[snipped example] >How does PC Lint handle these cases?
PCLint can be configured to ignore the assignment of constants when it does its type checking (I use this setup to avoid this very problem). Andy
iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote in message news:<41a38a44.1142687859@News.individual.net>...
> On 23 Nov 2004 10:43:47 -0800, jpetrang@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote: > > >I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding > >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup > >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment > >on their preference > > PC-lint is an awesome tool, and cheap. Splint (lclint) is a good > tool, and free. > > If you want to lint C++, PC-lint will do a good job of this. AFAIK, > splint is C only.
Thank you everyone for your responses. It looks to me as though PC Lint is what I'll recommend at work. The vast majority of the code is in C, and there's a tiny percentage of C++. However, that may change. I have another question for those who use either tool; how the speed of a lint run compare to building your code? Is it faster? Slower? How much? I'm asking because we have code that's shared across multiple projects. When you check in a file that is used by another project, that project gets updated too. The advanages are that everyone gets to benefit from the updates right away, but the downsides are that what works in one project may break another. Maybe someone used a #defined value from a non-shared file in a shared file, or something similar. Folks usually don't bother building all of the other projects that share their file before checking in code, due to looming deadlines on their own projects. They usually get away with it, but it sure can be a headache when you have to make sure updating your sandbox won't cause a break before you actually update it. It's impractical to ask people to always check every affected build before checking in updates, because it would take several hours to build every flavor of every project, during which time there may have been more updates. Of course we have an automated builder so it doesn't get out of control. But, if lint is fast enough, people could lint the other projects before checking in their code. Of course, I could always try it once we have it. But, knowing this ahead of time could help make the argument to purchase. Thanks again, Jeanne (not my real email address)
On 24 Nov 2004 07:08:44 -0800, jpetrang@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote:

[...]
> >I have another question for those who use either tool; how the speed of >a lint run compare to building your code? Is it faster? Slower? How >much?
Lint is _much_ faster. It's often so quick that my knee-jerk reaction is "Oops, what went wrong?... Oh, it's just done." The current project I'm working on is fairly small. About 6k of code using avr-gcc. Consisting of 7 .c and 7 .h files totaling about 112k of code on the disk. Building and linking the object files using make takes about 3 seconds (2.77 according to the system clock) on my system. Linting everything with "make lint" takes less than a second (0.36 seconds, identical to performing a make with an up-to-date build). Removing make from the equation and linting everything from the command line takes even less time (0.16 seconds). These are crude timings, performed by running batch files that look something like: time < nul make time < nul PC-lint has the ability to create "lint object" files so you only have to lint what actually has changed. But IME linting an entire project takes so little time that it's not been worthwhile to use them. Regards, -Úve -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On 24 Nov 2004 01:14:01 GMT, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

>On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote: >
[...]
>> though I have never understood their FlexeLint pricing, even >> if it is distributed in source form. > >The fact that it's in obfuscated source files doesn't increase >the value to the customer, so why should the price be higher?
Exactly my point. Which is why I don't understand it. [...]
>I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too >many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and >I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a >program I already paid for once.
I think you're reading too much into the phrase "non-floating," or maybe "A single user on a computer workstation." AFAIK, there is no software licensing management for FlexeLint (there certainly is none for PC-lint). The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to deal with.
> >> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 >> binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen >> speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something >> similar. > >Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a >lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold.
In at least one sense you're right. If you can't be bothered to run lint, it won't do you any good. But IMHO, the greater pain is trying to work _without_ lint.
>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using PC-lint. But they still don't come close. Regards, -Úve -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too >>many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and >>I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a >>program I already paid for once. > > I think you're reading too much into the phrase > "non-floating," or maybe "A single user on a computer > workstation." AFAIK, there is no software licensing management > for FlexeLint (there certainly is none for PC-lint). > > The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" > license is that it forbids you to access the program through a > network.
That's ridiculous. I can't ssh in from home and work? I can't work with an X window displayed on a different machine? Bah. Somebody should drag Gimpel into the 1990's.
> If your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you > could replace any part or all of the system and legally > continue to use the program under the terms of the license. > But, of course, IANAL. You could ask Gimpel if you have any > questions. IME, they're very reasonable to deal with.
Except for the pricing and license terms, apparently. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I was in a HOT at TUB! I was NORMAL! I was visi.com ITALIAN!! I enjoyed th' EARTHQUAKE!
iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) writes:

[snip]
> I think you're reading too much into the phrase "non-floating," or > maybe "A single user on a computer workstation." AFAIK, there is no > software licensing management for FlexeLint (there certainly is none > for PC-lint). > > The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license > is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If > your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace > any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program > under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask > Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to > deal with.
So I actually have to be physically logged-in to that very machine with my keyboard, mouse and monitor connected to it? I can't use an X-Terminal with it? If /usr is mounted from a remote machine, I can't use it? What kind of maroon thinks up these things...
> >> >>> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 >>> binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen >>> speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something >>> similar. >> >>Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a >>lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold. > > In at least one sense you're right. If you can't be bothered to run > lint, it won't do you any good. But IMHO, the greater pain is trying > to work _without_ lint. > >>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job. > > Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using > PC-lint. But they still don't come close.
CFLAGS := -D__USE_GNU=1 -D__USE_MISC=1 -D__USE_BSD=1 -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -O -Wall -W -DNDEBUG CFLAGS += -Wcast-align -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wsign-compare CFLAGS += -Wno-unused -Wundef -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute does pretty well for me. Mind you, I have a .splintrc in every directory as well - typical contents: -I/usr/src/linux/include/ -I/usr/src/rtai/include/ -I/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.2.3/include/ -I/usr/include -realcompare -predboolint -boolops -exportlocal -fcnuse -exitarg -booltype bool -fullinitblock +charindex +charint -formattype -castfcnptr -shiftimplementation -Dsizeof(x)=(size_t)(sizeof(x)) -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -D__GNUC__=3 -D__GNUC_MINOR__=2 -D__STDC__ -D__signed__-D__const__=const -D__inline__=inline -D__attribute__(x)-D__const=const -D__restrict-DKERNEL -D__builtin_va_list=int (Running splint against kernel sources is ... interesting) cheers, Rich. -- rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk technical director 251 Liverpool Road | need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487 www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml
On 24 Nov 2004 16:14:42 GMT, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

>On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote: >
[...]
>> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" >> license is that it forbids you to access the program through a >> network. > >That's ridiculous. I can't ssh in from home and work? I can't >work with an X window displayed on a different machine?
Again, IANAL, but I believe you can. You are still the only user, and you are running the program on that one workstation, and that workstation isn't accessing the program over a network. The license doesn't say you are limited to a single keyboard or display. As long as you don't try to run the software on your local machine...
> >Bah. Somebody should drag Gimpel into the 1990's.
Well, they do have floating licenses, with the cost delta for additional simultaneous users at or below the cost for a single workstation license. Of course, those have an even higher entry point, and are limited to a LAN... None of which explains why the cost of licensing FlexeLint is so much greater than PC-lint. My best guess is that support costs might be higher because of the distribution method. But even at 4x the cost, that just means it takes a month to pay for itself rather than a week. Regards, -Úve -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:41:31 +0000, Rich Walker <rw@shadow.org.uk>
wrote:

>iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) writes:
[...]
>> The only restriction of that type I see in the "workstation" license >> is that it forbids you to access the program through a network. If >> your mobo, hard drive, or whatever failed, I expect you could replace >> any part or all of the system and legally continue to use the program >> under the terms of the license. But, of course, IANAL. You could ask >> Gimpel if you have any questions. IME, they're very reasonable to >> deal with. > >So I actually have to be physically logged-in to that very machine with >my keyboard, mouse and monitor connected to it?
It doesn't say that.
> I can't use an >X-Terminal with it?
It doesn't say that either.
> If /usr is mounted from a remote machine, I can't >use it?
If FlexeLint is installed under /usr, I believe it does say that.
> What kind of maroon thinks up these things...
Just an average Joe (or above-average Jim) trying to make a living, I guess. I expect the FlexeLint licensing policies are costing Gimpel customers. I'm beginning to think it's not costing him any profits, however... [...]
>>>Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job. >> >> Compilers are much better at this than they were when I began using >> PC-lint. But they still don't come close. > >CFLAGS := -D__USE_GNU=1 -D__USE_MISC=1 -D__USE_BSD=1 -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 -O -Wall -W -DNDEBUG >CFLAGS += -Wcast-align -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wsign-compare >CFLAGS += -Wno-unused -Wundef -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute > >does pretty well for me.
Probably fair, as Grant said.
> >Mind you, I have a .splintrc in every directory as well - typical >contents:
[...] I don't know much about splint, so this didn't mean much to me. The project.lnt file for the project I'm current working on looks like this: --- begin included file --- // Compiler definitions // c:\lint\lnt\co-gnu3.lnt // 2.95.3 and later -si2 // Change int and ptr sizes for AVR -sp2 //c:\lint\lnt\au-misra.lnt // MISRA checking // Header file locations // -i"C:\WinAVR\avr\include" -i"C:\WinAVR\lib\gcc\avr\3.4.1\include" // Project definitions // -d__AVR_ATmega16__ // Compiler does this from MCU definition -dOSC_FREQ000000 // Make file derives this from HZ -dDBUG=0 -dHIGH_CAP=0 -dDISABLE_VBATT_TEST=0 // Error reporting suspension // // Some GNU macros return a value from bracketed expressions. // -emacro(155,__LPM*) // Interrupt vectors must be extern but aren't referenced // -esym(714,__vector_*) -esym(765,__vector_*) // Global macros in header files might not all be used // Global typedefs might not all be used // -esym(755,EE_*,IO_*,ADC_*,ADCSR_*) -esym(756,S8,U8,S16,U16,S32,U32) --- end included file --- The options probably do what you expect. The -esym options disable a message for particular symbols, and -emacro disables the message during the invocation of the specified macros. For example, I have a header file that defines typedefs for S8, U8, etc. Nowhere in this project do I have a signed 32-bit integer. Without the last line in the file shown above, I'd get a message 756 (global typedef not referenced) message for S32. I don't have the MISRA checking options enabled (yet -- they're commented out). We're at the prototype stage at this point.
>(Running splint against kernel sources is ... interesting)
The subtitle of Chapter 14 (Living with Lint) of the PC-lint/FlexeLint manual is "Don't Kill the Messenger." Regards, -Úve -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) wrote in message news:<41a38a44.1142687859@News.individual.net>...
> On 23 Nov 2004 10:43:47 -0800, jpetrang@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote: > > >I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding > >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup > >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment > >on their preference > > PC-lint is an awesome tool, and cheap. Splint (lclint) is a good > tool, and free. > > If you want to lint C++, PC-lint will do a good job of this. AFAIK, > splint is C only.
Thank you everyone for your responses. It looks to me as though PC Lint is what I'll recommend at work. The vast majority of the code is in C, and there's a tiny percentage of C++. However, that may change. I have another question for those who use either tool; how the speed of a lint run compare to building your code? Is it faster? Slower? How much? I'm asking because we have code that's shared across multiple projects. When you check in a file that is used by another project, that project gets updated too. The advanages are that everyone gets to benefit from the updates right away, but the downsides are that what works in one project may break another. Maybe someone used a #defined value from a non-shared file in a shared file, or something similar. Folks usually don't bother building all of the other projects that share their file before checking in code, due to looming deadlines on their own projects. They usually get away with it, but it sure can be a headache when you have to make sure updating your sandbox won't cause a break before you actually update it. It's impractical to ask people to always check every affected build before checking in updates, because it would take several hours to build every flavor of every project, during which time there may have been more updates. Of course we have an automated builder so it doesn't get out of control. But, if lint is fast enough, people could lint the other projects before checking in their code. Of course, I could always try it once we have it. But, knowing this ahead of time could help make the argument to purchase. Thanks again, Jeanne (not my real email address)
JeanneP wrote:
>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment >on their preference? > >Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to >PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the >dissatisfaction?
I have previously used splint and currently use PCLint. Splint was good, but it did need a lot of setting up and had some problems with unwanted warning that are hard to individually suppress (such as the example you gave). PCLint is better, especially for strong typing, and it is easier to tailor to your needs. I you have time to spare, I would try splint first. If it is being bought for your work, I would get PCLint.
>[snipped example] >How does PC Lint handle these cases?
PCLint can be configured to ignore the assignment of constants when it does its type checking (I use this setup to avoid this very problem). Andy
On 2004-11-24, Peter <moocowmoo@newprovidence.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> There is nothing to stop you from checking your Linux code on > your Windows machine except that it's not quite so convenient. > I copy it from the Linux machine to Windows to get the worst > errors out then return it.
I would, but I really don't want to reward Gimple's short-sightedness. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! The PINK SOCKS were at ORIGINALLY from 1952!! But visi.com they went to MARS around 1953!!
"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:41a3d830.1162635921@News.individual.net...
> On 23 Nov 2004 23:06:10 GMT, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: > >>On 2004-11-23, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: >> >>>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards, >>> >>> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously >>> expensive, >> >>Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node >>locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons... > > Maroons? That's a bit harsh, though I have never understood their > FlexeLint pricing, even if it is distributed in source form. > > Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 binaries, and > the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen speculation it could > run in DOSEMU or wine or something similar. Never tried it myself, > though. They have a 30-day money back guarantee... >
There is nothing to stop you from checking your Linux code on your Windows machine except that it's not quite so convenient. I copy it from the Linux machine to Windows to get the worst errors out then return it. Regards, Peter
jpetrang@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote:


>I'm trying to decide which static checker to recommend, and deciding >between PC Lint (which costs some cash) and splint (which costs setup >time). Does anyone here have experience with both, and can comment >on their preference? > >Has anyone been so dissatisfied with splint that they switched to >PC Lint, and did PC Lint solve the problem(s) that caused the >dissatisfaction?
At the time I started contracting for a new client, I was a PC Lint user. I needed to lint the client's code looking for (among other things) header files that were included without necessity. Not wanting the client to pay for PC Lint, I decided to try splint. After a moderately length setup session, I discovered that (to my knowledge) splint does not report such things (unused header files). Having discovered that, and being unimpressed with splint in general compared to PC Lint, I recommended that the client purchase PC Lint and after others evaluated it also, they ended up with a site license. I don't think you can go wrong with PC Lint. IMHO, it's small price is worth it compared to what I've experienced of the free stuff. -- Dan Henry
On 2004-11-24, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards, >>> >>> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously >>> expensive, >> >>Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node >>locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons... > > Maroons? That's a bit harsh,
Really? I'll have to pay attention to my Bugs Bunny cartoons closer -- I didn't think it was a very harsh term.
> though I have never understood their FlexeLint pricing, even > if it is distributed in source form.
The fact that it's in obfuscated source files doesn't increase the value to the customer, so why should the price be higher? The attitude that an app for Linux should cost 5X the price for the same app on XP (a much more expensive system both SW-wise and HW-wise) seems quite silly and outdated. Just the type of thing that would cause Bugs to exclaim "What a maroon!" I'm also alergic to node-locked stuff. I've been burned too many times when a motherboard, disk drive, or whatnot died and I had to cough up a pile of cash for the privledge of running a program I already paid for once.
> Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 > binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen > speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something > similar.
Probably so. I'm sure it would run under Win4Lin, but it's a lot of hassle either way and exceeds my pain threshold. Cranking up the warnings on gcc does a fair job.
> Never tried it myself, though. They have a 30-day > money back guarantee...
-- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Is this my STOP?? at visi.com
On 23 Nov 2004 23:06:10 GMT, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

>On 2004-11-23, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote: > >>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards, >> >> Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously >> expensive, > >Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node >locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons...
Maroons? That's a bit harsh, though I have never understood their FlexeLint pricing, even if it is distributed in source form. Note, however, the Windoze version includes DOS and OS/2 binaries, and the Win32 version is a console app. I have seen speculation it could run in DOSEMU or wine or something similar. Never tried it myself, though. They have a 30-day money back guarantee... Regards, -Úve -- Change is inevitable, progress is not.
On 2004-11-23, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

>> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards, > > Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously > expensive,
Yup, still is. A node locked copy ofr Windows is $240, a node locked copy for Linux is $1000. What a bunch of maroons... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! This ASEXUAL at PIG really BOILS visi.com my BLOOD... He's so... so... URGENT!!
On 2004-11-23, Meindert Sprang <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote:
> "Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:41a38a44.1142687859@News.individual.net... >> On 23 Nov 2004 10:43:47 -0800, jpetrang@harris.com (JeanneP) wrote: >> >I have a more specific question, too, for users of PC Lint. I was just >> >browsing the mailing list archives for splint, and found a mention >> >where splint will complain about the following: >> >>>> >> >UINT8 n; >> > >> >static foo(void) { >> > n = 5; >> >} >> ><<< >> > >> >because 5 is an int instead of an unsigned 8 bit int. Workarounds for >> >> I would be surprised if splint flagged that. Have you tried it? > > I did, and indeed, splint complains about it. Splint also complains about > things like "if (n < 5)" when n is unsigned.
Yup. IMO, splint is pretty much useless unless. You either have to disable so many warnings that it lets bugs through, or you have to put in a half-dozen typecasts in every line of code. The sheer unreadability of the latter will probably create more bugs than turning off the warnings. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I think my CAREER at is RUINED!! visi.com
On 2004-11-23, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would be surprised if splint flagged that. Have you tried it?
I have, and it does unless you tell it to consider all integer types equivalent. As was posted earlier, that then disable warnings for things like this: uint8_t b; uint32_t l; [...] b = l;
> because converting the int (0) to unsigned char might lose > significant bits. But that (and your example) are beyond > picky -- they're just plain wrong.
I thought so when I posted it to the splint mailing list. Nobody really seemed to care.
>>this in the code are just ugly style wise, like casting (which >>may hide a real problem) or assigning n = '\0x05'. When that >>warning is > > Assuming you mean '\x05'... > > That wouldn't make sense because '\x05' is every bit as much an int as > 5 is.
Splint doesn't think so.
>>UINT8 n; >>UINT16 k; >> >>static foo(void) { >> n = k; >>} >>How does PC Lint handle these cases? > > Here is a slightly modified version of your test code runt through > PC-lint: > > Note I had to add the typedefs. The "m=5" line did not generate a > message, but "n=k" did.
That's what a reasonable person would expect. That's not what split does. It considers the two lines sematically equivalent since '5' is an 'int'. You either get warnings on both or neither. At the point where splint generates the warning, the only information left is that the RHS was an 'INT'. It has discarded the information that it was a literal that will fit into 8 bits. To get reasonable behavior from splint would require extensive modifications.
> Also see www.gimpel.com for more info. Regards,
Last time I checked the Unix versions were hideously expensive, but I should check again. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... Get me a GIN at and TONIC!!...make it visi.com HAIR TONIC!!