Re: verification and linting of lua implementations

[David Manura <dm.lua@...>]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:44 AM, jos van kesteren
<josvankesteren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do you know what is happening here?
>>> | -esym(767,setnvalue,TValuefields,NILCONSTANT,numfield, [...]
>>> [ http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2011-09/msg00823.html ]
> Your text-snippet shows an error-suppression option for Gimpel PC-Lint.

BTW, the follow-up to that question is at [1].  (Unfortunately, the
lua-l web archive doesn't seem to show links between threads that span
a month--e.g. the reply on 1 Oct 2011 to the question posted 30 Sep
2011.)

  [1] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2011-10/msg00007.html

> 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

All true.  However, to really maximize it's potential can be a lot of
work and involves code changes (e.g. lint comments and const usage),
perhaps extensive, that I'm not sure will be accepted by the Lua
upstream.  The same might apply to Coverty.