Searching \ for '[OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=code+validation
Search entire site for: 'Code Validation Tools > Lint'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint'
2000\06\08@145612 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
Anybody have any experience with some of the code validation tools out there?

I have a PC-based project (with a PIC in it) that I would like to validate with
more than just a lint program.  (Come to think of it, what version of lint are
you guys using?)

Ideas?

Thanks.

Andy

2000\06\08@171527 by Barry King

flavicon
face
Andy,

I have an opinion.

If you have code that *seems* correct and compiles cleanly and lint
is happy with it, you are ready to do a code review.

Code reviews are a process where you explain to other programmers
what the program does, and why, and how.  In the process, the review
team will likely find a large proportion of your latent bugs.

Testing is good, too, but its very expensive per bug to find errors
by testing, compared to code reviews.  This is partly because it is
usually difficult to exercise all branches in a program.

Code reviews are a very effective tool, no matter what other formal
methods for development that you may adopt.

Take a look at Jack Ganssle's web site for more about this:
http://www.ganssle.com
He suggests a particular method for doing code reviews.  For a very
small company like mine, I've had to adapt the methods.  But I'm
getting good results finding latent bugs that would not have been
caught in testing.

Regards,

Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org

2000\06\09@031815 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
part 0 2596 bytes content-type:application/octet-stream;Hi,

I agree with Barry - once you are happy with your "Linted" code, conduct a
review. Take your Lint reports along, there may be some issues up for discussion
from the Lint output, too. It doesnt have to be a "formal" review, such as Fagan
inspection - we find that we have a lot of success with more informal peer
reviews/ code walkthroughs. It is also a good incentive to write decent code
when you know your colleagues are going to rip it apart at their first
opportunity ;-)

Regards,

Dan



|------------->
|(Embedded    |
|image moved  |
|to file:     |
|pic00262.pcx)|
|             |
|------------->
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |Barry King <spam_OUTbarryTakeThisOuTspamNRGSYSTEMS.COM>                                       |
 |08/06/2000 23:04                                                        |
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal



Andy,

I have an opinion.

If you have code that *seems* correct and compiles cleanly and lint
is happy with it, you are ready to do a code review.

Code reviews are a process where you explain to other programmers
what the program does, and why, and how.  In the process, the review
team will likely find a large proportion of your latent bugs.

Testing is good, too, but its very expensive per bug to find errors
by testing, compared to code reviews.  This is partly because it is
usually difficult to exercise all branches in a program.

Code reviews are a very effective tool, no matter what other formal
methods for development that you may adopt.

Take a look at Jack Ganssle's web site for more about this:
http://www.ganssle.com
He suggests a particular method for doing code reviews.  For a very
small company like mine, I've had to adapt the methods.  But I'm
getting good results finding latent bugs that would not have been
caught in testing.

Regards,

Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org






Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic00262.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic00262.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic00262.pcx (????/----) (00016364)

2000\06\09@045146 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>He suggests a particular method for doing code reviews.  For a very
>small company like mine, I've had to adapt the methods.  But I'm
>getting good results finding latent bugs that would not have been
>caught in testing.

Do you proceed to do a specific test to verify you actually have a bug when identifying
one of these situations? If not it seems to me that you may be breaking something that you
only think is broke, but may not be.

2000\06\09@075235 by Andrew Kunz
flavicon
face
part 0 3249 bytes content-type:application/octet-stream;
For the record, we are talking > 100K lines of code.

It hasn't been lint'd yet - I'm looking for a decent lint package as well.  WHAT
HAVE YOU USED!?

Formal ode reviews will come (I believe in them having used them in the past),
but right now the software dept is one guy - moi! (I'm looking for more
engineers, as posted previously)

Andy









D Lloyd <.....dan.lloydKILLspamspam.....GB.ABB.COM> on 06/09/2000 03:14:31 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint










Hi,

I agree with Barry - once you are happy with your "Linted" code, conduct a
review. Take your Lint reports along, there may be some issues up for discussion
from the Lint output, too. It doesnt have to be a "formal" review, such as Fagan
inspection - we find that we have a lot of success with more informal peer
reviews/ code walkthroughs. It is also a good incentive to write decent code
when you know your colleagues are going to rip it apart at their first
opportunity ;-)

Regards,

Dan



|------------->
|(Embedded    |
|image moved  |
|to file:     |
|pic00262.pcx)|
|             |
|------------->
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |Barry King <@spam@barryKILLspamspamNRGSYSTEMS.COM>                                       |
 |08/06/2000 23:04                                                        |
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal



Andy,

I have an opinion.

If you have code that *seems* correct and compiles cleanly and lint
is happy with it, you are ready to do a code review.

Code reviews are a process where you explain to other programmers
what the program does, and why, and how.  In the process, the review
team will likely find a large proportion of your latent bugs.

Testing is good, too, but its very expensive per bug to find errors
by testing, compared to code reviews.  This is partly because it is
usually difficult to exercise all branches in a program.

Code reviews are a very effective tool, no matter what other formal
methods for development that you may adopt.

Take a look at Jack Ganssle's web site for more about this:
http://www.ganssle.com
He suggests a particular method for doing code reviews.  For a very
small company like mine, I've had to adapt the methods.  But I'm
getting good results finding latent bugs that would not have been
caught in testing.

Regards,

Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org







Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic00262.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic00262.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic00262.pcx 1 (????/----) (00016371)

2000\06\09@083027 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
part 0 4725 bytes content-type:application/octet-stream;






Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal




Hi,

For the record, we are talking > 100K lines of code.

* Arranged in suitably sized modules, no doubt........The project we just did
has a similar amount of code and we Linted it, no problem.

It hasn't been lint'd yet - I'm looking for a decent lint package as well.  WHAT
HAVE YOU USED!?

* Keep your hair on, Aaron! :-) We are using 'the' Lint (Gimpel Software,
version h) which we have to frig because it doesnt directly "support" our IAR
compiler (not a big problem). We also find that it generates a lot of
'disinformation' but this is an evil that can be tolerated. I know that there
are Windows-style linting packages but we like the old-fashioned dos one. I had
tried one called PC-Lint, which seemed to give "good" (sorry, didnt have time to
perform a full evaluation against what we were using, hence the relative term)
results.....just depends what you prefer.

Formal ode reviews will come (I believe in them having used them in the past),
but right now the software dept is one guy - moi! (I'm looking for more
engineers, as posted previously)

* Then you have a problem, which is a pity, as we find reviews extremely
effective. I know there are firms around that will review and audit code for
you, but I imagine they do it very formally.....depends what you want from
it/how much you want to pay.

Regards,

Dan

Andy









D Lloyd <RemoveMEdan.lloydspamTakeThisOuTGB.ABB.COM> on 06/09/2000 03:14:31 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTEraseMEspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      EraseMEPICLISTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint










Hi,

I agree with Barry - once you are happy with your "Linted" code, conduct a
review. Take your Lint reports along, there may be some issues up for discussion
from the Lint output, too. It doesnt have to be a "formal" review, such as Fagan
inspection - we find that we have a lot of success with more informal peer
reviews/ code walkthroughs. It is also a good incentive to write decent code
when you know your colleagues are going to rip it apart at their first
opportunity ;-)

Regards,

Dan



|------------->
|(Embedded    |
|image moved  |
|to file:     |
|pic00262.pcx)|
|             |
|------------->
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 |Barry King <RemoveMEbarryEraseMEspamEraseMENRGSYSTEMS.COM>                                       |
 |08/06/2000 23:04                                                        |
 >------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal



Andy,

I have an opinion.

If you have code that *seems* correct and compiles cleanly and lint
is happy with it, you are ready to do a code review.

Code reviews are a process where you explain to other programmers
what the program does, and why, and how.  In the process, the review
team will likely find a large proportion of your latent bugs.

Testing is good, too, but its very expensive per bug to find errors
by testing, compared to code reviews.  This is partly because it is
usually difficult to exercise all branches in a program.

Code reviews are a very effective tool, no matter what other formal
methods for development that you may adopt.

Take a look at Jack Ganssle's web site for more about this:
http://www.ganssle.com
He suggests a particular method for doing code reviews.  For a very
small company like mine, I've had to adapt the methods.  But I'm
getting good results finding latent bugs that would not have been
caught in testing.

Regards,

Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org








Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic00262.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic00262.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic00262.pcx 2 (????/----) (00016378)
Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic01398.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic01398.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic01398.pcx (????/----) (00016379)

2000\06\09@090048 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
>We are using 'the' Lint (Gimpel Software,
>version h) which we have to frig because it doesnt directly "support" our IAR
>compiler (not a big problem). We also find that it generates a lot of

I'd look at using IAR dongleware as a problem, though <G>

I just downloaded LC-Lint from http://lclint.cs.virginia.edu/win32.html

>tried one called PC-Lint, which seemed to give "good" (sorry, didnt have time
to
>perform a full evaluation against what we were using, hence the relative term)
>results.....just depends what you prefer.

Gimpel makes "PC-Lint"

>* Then you have a problem, which is a pity, as we find reviews extremely
>effective. I know there are firms around that will review and audit code for

They've worked wonders in the past for me, too.  I may have to go to an audit

>you, but I imagine they do it very formally.....depends what you want from
>it/how much you want to pay.

2000\06\09@111519 by Barry King

flavicon
face
Andy,

We're very small, too.  We have a consultant that has worked with us
occasionally for years.  He knows the product, and the gist of what
we're trying to do.  We will hire him for the code reviews.  Well
worth it, as you say.

IMHO, one of the reasons for using C is that any hardware-savvy
person that  speaks the language can be a useful reviewer, they don't
have to know PICs.  In fact, explaining the PIC hardware requirements
to an embedded 68K or x86 or 8051 programmer may be the most useful
part of the review.

-Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org

2000\06\12@031337 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
part 0 1754 bytes content-type:application/octet-stream;






Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <EraseMEPICLISTspamspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal



* Replies denoted by a "*"

>We are using 'the' Lint (Gimpel Software,
>version h) which we have to frig because it doesnt directly "support" our IAR
>compiler (not a big problem). We also find that it generates a lot of

I'd look at using IAR dongleware as a problem, though <G>

* Not much choice available for our micro......

I just downloaded LC-Lint from http://lclint.cs.virginia.edu/win32.html

>tried one called PC-Lint, which seemed to give "good" (sorry, didnt have time
to
>perform a full evaluation against what we were using, hence the relative term)
>results.....just depends what you prefer.

Gimpel makes "PC-Lint"

* It wasn't PC-Lint from Gimpel that I was trying out, then - I remember it
being by someone else I also seem to remember the name had "PC" and "Lint" in
it, I'm pretty sure about that. I'll have to try to find it again.

>* Then you have a problem, which is a pity, as we find reviews extremely
>effective. I know there are firms around that will review and audit code for

They've worked wonders in the past for me, too.  I may have to go to an audit

>you, but I imagine they do it very formally.....depends what you want from
>it/how much you want to pay

Dan


Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic01934.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic01934.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic01934.pcx (????/----) (00016458)

2000\06\12@073122 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
Hi (Andy),

Futhermore.........Yeah, my mistake (what was I thinking?) about the PC-Lint.
The program I was on about was called "CLint", I believe. It was a Windows
front-end product, if that excites you. Personally, I just integrate PC-Lint (!)
with CodeWright so it was of no real benefit.

What I would be interested in is a code visualisation tool......I was looking at
CC Rider for a little while - something you can quickly run on legacy code to
see how it is put together . Any ideas/other products known to you?

Regards,

Dan

2000\06\12@075209 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
Yeah, except that the PC side is the one in need of the code review at this
point.

Andy










Barry King <barrySTOPspamspamspam_OUTNRGSYSTEMS.COM> on 06/09/2000 12:05:27 PM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <spamBeGonePICLISTSTOPspamspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      KILLspamPICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint








Andy,

We're very small, too.  We have a consultant that has worked with us
occasionally for years.  He knows the product, and the gist of what
we're trying to do.  We will hire him for the code reviews.  Well
worth it, as you say.

IMHO, one of the reasons for using C is that any hardware-savvy
person that  speaks the language can be a useful reviewer, they don't
have to know PICs.  In fact, explaining the PIC hardware requirements
to an embedded 68K or x86 or 8051 programmer may be the most useful
part of the review.

-Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
http://www.nrgsystems.com
Check out the accumulated (PIC) wisdom of the ages at:
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.org

2000\06\12@075433 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
No ideas, but it sounds like a useful tool if you aren't familiar with a
project.  Would have helped me get up to speed with this one I'm sure.  It isn't
easy being handed 100K lines of code and being told "fix it" when you don't even
know well what it's supposed to do!

Andy








D Lloyd <EraseMEdan.lloydspamEraseMEGB.ABB.COM> on 06/12/2000 07:31:36 AM

Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <@spam@PICLIST@spam@spamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>








To:      spamBeGonePICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU

cc:      (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES)



Subject: Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint








Hi (Andy),

Futhermore.........Yeah, my mistake (what was I thinking?) about the PC-Lint.
The program I was on about was called "CLint", I believe. It was a Windows
front-end product, if that excites you. Personally, I just integrate PC-Lint (!)
with CodeWright so it was of no real benefit.

What I would be interested in is a code visualisation tool......I was looking at
CC Rider for a little while - something you can quickly run on legacy code to
see how it is put together . Any ideas/other products known to you?

Regards,

Dan

2000\06\16@094817 by D Lloyd

flavicon
face
part 0 1756 bytes content-type:application/octet-stream;






Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list <.....PICLISTspam_OUTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>

To:   TakeThisOuTPICLIST.....spamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Dan Lloyd/GBPTD/ABB)
Subject:  Re: [OT]: Code Validation Tools > Lint

Security Level:?         Internal



* Replies denoted by a "*"

>We are using 'the' Lint (Gimpel Software,
>version h) which we have to frig because it doesnt directly "support" our IAR
>compiler (not a big problem). We also find that it generates a lot of

I'd look at using IAR dongleware as a problem, though <G>

* Not much choice available for our micro......

I just downloaded LC-Lint from http://lclint.cs.virginia.edu/win32.html

>tried one called PC-Lint, which seemed to give "good" (sorry, didnt have time
to
>perform a full evaluation against what we were using, hence the relative term)
>results.....just depends what you prefer.

Gimpel makes "PC-Lint"

* It wasn't PC-Lint from Gimpel that I was trying out, then - I remember it
being by someone else I also seem to remember the name had "PC" and "Lint" in
it, I'm pretty sure about that. I'll have to try to find it again.

>* Then you have a problem, which is a pity, as we find reviews extremely
>effective. I know there are firms around that will review and audit code for

They've worked wonders in the past for me, too.  I may have to go to an audit

>you, but I imagine they do it very formally.....depends what you want from
>it/how much you want to pay

Dan


Content-type: application/octet-stream;
       name="pic01934.pcx"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pic01934.pcx"

Attachment converted: creation:pic01934.pcx 1 (????/----) (00016697)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...