[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20130821171443.GA17173%netbsd.org@localhost>,
> David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:27:11AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > I strongly believe that I am not the only own tired of dealing with lint
> > > crap. As written before:
> > > (1) The user experience is completely horrible. Even GCC produces more
> > > sensible warnings.
> > > (2) The majority of the diagnosed issues is useless. The useful cases I
> > > know of are pretty much all covered by non-default options to either GCC
> > > or Clang. The latter have a much, much lower false positive rate.
> > > (3) The default SNR is abysmal.
> > > (4) It doesn't understand GCC-style attributes and it doesn't support
> > > flow graph based analysis.
> > > (5) The only mildly sensible part is the inter-object checking and even
> > > that is basically obsolete by using prototypes in headers.
> > > (6) It still doesn't even handle C99 fully.
> > >
> > > Based on all this, I want to stop wasting my time on "fallout" from lint
> > > and disable it by default.
> >As I've said before too, I don't think it should be removed (or
> >disabled) until an alternate is available.
> Fine, but this thing has come before many times and we don't have an
> official position so we keep discussing it over and over. Let's get
> an official position from core once and for all. I will abstain since
> I am known to be pro-lint.
you are still a member of the core group, however.. and it seems to me
that a decision from core should really reflect input from all its members
Main Index |
Thread Index |