Re: verification and linting of lua implementations

[jos van kesteren <josvankesteren@...>]

>>
>> 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
>>

Hi 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.

Regards,
Jos van Kesteren.