Why? I am not a fan of MS but XP works and all the tools I need run on it which they don't do natively on anything else.
Maybe.
But PC-lint is a hell of a lot better and costs little. If you are buying EWB then it is worth adding PC-lint at the same time.
A blast of sanity at last :-)
In message , Boudewijn Dijkstra writes
I disagree and I think you are better off running PC_lint from within EWB and running it often.
For serious or safety critical projects something a little stronger like QAC or LDRA is a good idea.
The EWB MISRA-C checker on it's own is not a good idea. It is a tick box solution.
... I know,
Just to make sure I'm not missing out on something. I'm not an MS fan, but like you, XP works.
I haven't tried with anything new, like .net, but if you want a laugh, try linting a simple Visual C version 6 program with lib checking enabled. I made that mistake. The first line of my C file was over 17K lines into the output listing. I wonder if MS has discovered lint yet.
Scott
My most recent direct quote is from PJ Plauger at last weeks WG14 meeting, he does not speak alone.
There are a lot of good commercial tools out there. A lot of innovate products have commercial roots, software products that were developed to attract customers who see them worthwhile enough to pay money for them. That is a high bar.
I know better than most that there are alternatives.
15 years after most C compilers could out optimize most hand written assembler based applications there is still the myth that you need assembler.Regards,
-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
Last few days have been mostly all nighters. When the balance between lack of sleep and caffeine gets out of whack one's inhibitors fail.
Its a tradeoff, its always a tradeoff. Many commercial tools and accompanying support can be a very good investment.
Coffee's ready..
Regards,
-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited
I agree, Lint first compile only when the source passes lint. It doesn't take appreciably longer (if at all) to lint then it does to compile in my experience so you don't save a lot of time by avoiding the step. Actually I expect you save time when you consider the avoided problems.
Robert
Op Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:41:23 +0200 schreef Not Really Me :
Lint checks against ANSI/ISO C/C++ and Good(TM) programming practice, not Microsoft(R) C/C++ and Microsoft(R) programming practice.
There is a lot of evidence to support that.
:-)
Seconded!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required