2010/2/17 Arjen de Korte: > Citeren Charles Lepple: > >> I wonder if there are any cross-compilation targets we could use to test >> some of the word-size assumptions. Also, we could add in some static >> analysis tools.
FYI, I submitted NUT to the Coverity Scan program (http://scan.coverity.com) last september. 3 pings later, I still have no news, nor at least a first contact! maybe some of you may want to second that request? > Regarding the latter, I tried running 'splint' on a couple of source files a > while back. It didn't take long to realize that this might indeed improve > the quality of the code. But this will be a monumental task to do this NUT > wide, since without added markup (to tell splint what we're doing), this > will result in an endless list of warning messages. > > After nut-2.4.2 is out, I'll commit a couple of examples to show what would > be needed. excellent. don't hesitate to complete the QA document: http://buildbot.ghz.cc/~buildbot/docs/r2351-444/website/nut-qa.html (generated from docs/nut-qa.txt) I would really like to see the static code analysis subject addressed. Arjen, have you compared / tried other systems like Frama-C, BLAST or Clang? before investing in one system or another (which is part of 2.8), I would like to have a clear picture of the situation. cheers, Arnaud _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
