Quick summary: I think this is a Splint bug...
> Did you define __asm with a macro?
No, the assembly is there when I compile with my compiler, and I was very
careful to use all the same "-D" definitions.
I just did a "strings -a" on splint.exe and found the following:
__asm
_asm
__asm__
So, I would hypothesize that:
-- Splint understands the __asm.
-- Splint removes it during the preprocessor step or somesuch.
-- Splint then finds an empty code block in a later step and
produces the warning.
I then went to the source and found the following in LEX.YY.C:
else if (cstring_equalLit (id, "__attribute__")
|| cstring_equalLit (id, "__asm__")
|| cstring_equalLit (id, "_asm")
|| cstring_equalLit (id, "__asm")
|| cstring_equalLit (id, "__declspec"))
Although I couldn't follow it well enough to determine what it was really
doing with the line (namely, was it deleting it).
So, it seems that this actually is a Splint bug.
By the way, it would be REALLY useful if Split supported "-E" (dump
preprocessor output) or something along those lines...
-----Original Message-----
From: David Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday 10 May 2002 1:49 PM
To: Taed Wynnell
Cc: Splint Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Suppressing ifempty with an annotation?
Did you define __asm with a macro?
Without any macro definitions, splint doesn't report any warnings for that
code. It does if you don't have the { ... } though, perhaps that is what
you mean.
Without them, the __asm is cut, and splint does report the ifempty
warning. You can use -ifempty on the command line or as a control comment
like this:
if (debuggerRunning)
/*@-ifempty@*/ __asm { int 3 }; /*@=ifempty@*/
--- Dave
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Taed Wynnell wrote:
> I just started using Split this morning to try it out on my Windows device
> driver. Whew! Lots and lots of "errors", so I'm just concentrating on
the
> "-weak" ones...
>
> I have a macro that I use a lot that looks something like:
> if (debuggerRunning) {
> __asm { int 3 };
> }
>
> Of course, I don't expect Splint to do anything with the assembly, but I
> then get the "empty if statement" warning all over the place. I'd like to
> just fix that warning in the macro, rather than suppress it altogether.
The
> documentation doesn't seem to show an annotation that could be used for
that
> case, but it seems like something that would have come up before...
>
> Is there an undocumented annotation for this? Is there another way of
> avoiding the warning without suppressing the warning for all the code?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
