lclint-interest message 178
From email@example.com Thu Nov 6 12:09:19 1997
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 12:06:15 -0500
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (David Evans)
In-Reply-To: Paolo Argenton's message of Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:56:20 +0100 <email@example.com>
Subject: Subscription request
> 1) bounds checking: it would be nice to have it, at least for statically
> declared arrays.
Yes, I've thought about this and it definitely would be useful. Its
quite difficult to do something general here, but there may be partial
check that are useful. Gimpel PC-Lint does some value checking with
> 2) Compiler specific extensions: I gave a look at the scanner; I was
> thinking about a quick hack like considering extension keywords like
> "__declspec( attribute )" as blanks.
You can usually manage by writing a macro, e.g., #define __declspec(x).
LCLint supports some of the GNU compiler extensions, but theres no limit
on the kinds of extensions compiler-writers will make. In general, I
don't think there's anyway to easily avoid having to modify the scanner
directly if you want lclint to support a new compiler extension.
> 3) Cyclomatic measure. I don't know if this could be easy to add, but it
> could be nice
> to have a warning for cyclomatic number too high.
I've thought about adding some kind of metrics to lclint, but generally
find most metrics unsatisfying. Genenerally, the programmer knows
intuitively when code is too complex. It makes sense if an institution
want to declare some rules that all code must meet, but there are always
contrived ways to make the code satisfy the metric (and these usually
end up making the code more complex).
University of Virginia, Computer Science