Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:17:41 -0400 (EDT) | From | Chris Ricker <> | Subject | Re: Database of kernel bugs |
| |
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> No, 99.9% is junk - not things that should be fixed in the kernel, > but things that should be suppressed in the output. > > Polishing the kernel source in such a way that it survives stricter testing > than gcc does would be useful indeed. But ospc cannot be used for that > purpose, since it is not available, and so far only has produced garbage. > I have played a little bit with lclint yesterday, it is at least available, > but it is not up to the task either - it gets easily confused by gcc-isms. >
So email Derek at Knowledge Software (derek@knosof.co.uk) and tell him what is being unnecessarily flagged and why it's unnecessary. He seems like a reasonable guy who'd be quite willing to listen to you if you want to bother making suggestions.
Personally, I think it's quite nice of him to go to all the trouble he has to run the kernel through his company's product. If you give him a little constructive criticism, I'm sure he'll listen, and then he'll make a (hopefully small) output file of actual bugs. As it is, he's got a large output file, a lot of which are not actually bugs, but since no one has told him about the stuff he's unnecessarily flagging, he doesn't know to fix the problem.
later, chris
|  |