[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: verification and linting of lua implementations
- From: jos van kesteren <josvankesteren@...>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:44:12 +0200
>> Do you know what is happening here?
>> | -esym(767,setnvalue,TValuefields,NILCONSTANT,numfield,
>> | val_,num_,rttype,ttisnumber,ttisequal,checktag,
>> | settt_,setobj,lua_number2int,lua_number2integer,lua_number2unsigned)
>> | // macro defined differently in another module
>> -- Roberto
Thanks for a great software product.
Your text-snippet shows an error-suppression option for Gimpel PC-Lint.
One of the (many many) warnings and/or errors that PC-Lint can show
for a reasonably-sized C-project
is Informational message 767 :
The meaning of this error has been summarized in the C++ style comment.
The complete text from the Lint-manual is:
"macro <Symbol> was defined differently in another module (<Location>).
The option '-esym(767,...) suppresses this message from the
Lint-output, but only for the
specific symbols given in the argument list.
To add more symbols, the option -esym(767,...) may be invoked multiple times.
PC-Lint is great for finding obscure corner-case errors in large C/C++ projects,
but it is also likely to output an unexpectedly large number of
warnings if it is used
for the first time in a large project. For this reason, it is possible
to suppress warnings and errors
by category, and individual number. The -esym option falls somewhere
in-between these two ends of the spectrum.
BTW, this question indicates to me that you don't use PC-Lint so far.
If that is correct, it is somewhat of a surprise to me, but then
again, Lua is exposed to such
a wide variety of C-compilers, which might be just as good as using PC-Lint.
Jos van Kesteren.