Splint VS Cppcheck

Splint Reviews

Cppcheck Reviews

Splint mentions (9)

• C-rusted: The Advantages of Rust, in C, without the Disadvantages

  Whenever I see people talk about the portability or compatibility advantages of C, I'm reminded of how "even C isn't compatible with C", because you typically aren't talking about up-to-date GCC or LLVM on these niche platforms... you're talking about some weird or archaic vendor-provided compiler... Possibly with syntax extensions that static analyzers like splint will choke on. (Splint can't even understand near... Source: about 1 year ago

• Announcing Rust 1.67.1

  Huh. I think I actually needed to use the equivalent position for certain splint annotations in my C retro-hobby project. Source: about 1 year ago

• US NGO Consumer Reports also reporting on C and C++ safety for product development.

  I often like to say that Rust's bindings are a way to trick people into writing the compile-time safety annotations that they didn't want to write for things like splint. (Seriously. Look into how much splint is capable of checking with the correct annotations.). Source: about 1 year ago

• “Rust is safe” is not some kind of absolute guarantee of code safety

  Linters like Splint [0] can do that for C. I’m not saying that Rust’s built-in approach isn’t better, but please be careful about what exactly you claim. [0] http://splint.org/. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago

• Glauber's Journey from rust to typescript

  (Sort of like how, for my DOS hobby project, I use splint to require explicit casts between typedefs so I can use the newtype pattern without having to manually reach into wrapper struct fields in places that don't do conversions.). Source: over 1 year ago

Cppcheck mentions (10)

• Configuring Cppcheck, Cpplint, and JSON Lint

  I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end. - Source: dev.to / about 2 months ago

• Enforcing Memory Safety?

  Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code. Source: 11 months ago

• Static Code analysis

  For my own projects, I used cppcheck. You can check out that tool to get a feel. Depending on what industry your in, you might need to follow a standard like Misra. Source: about 1 year ago

• How do you not shoot yourself in the foot ?

  Https://cppcheck.sourceforge.io/ (there are many other static analysis tools, I just haven't used them or didn't care for them). Source: about 1 year ago

• Linting tool for prohibiting the use of specific std types

  Sounds like something that could simply be communicated with the team that writes the tests. Unless you have dozens of such classes. In that case, you could just use e.g. Cppcheck and add a rule (regular expression) that searches for usages of the forbidden classes. Source: over 1 year ago