This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c/c++ validator
Mathieu Malaterre <mmalater@nycap.rr.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Tommy Vercetti <vercetti@zlew.org> writes:
| > | On Sunday 19 June 2005 03:03, you wrote:
| > | > Tommy Vercetti <vercetti@zlew.org> writes:
| > | > | On Sunday 19 June 2005 00:32, you wrote:
| > | > | > Something like:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~gregod/STLlint/STLlint.html
| > | > |
| > | > | Yeah, but for more than just STL, and opensource. C++ checker that
| > | > | is going to work for instance for KDE.
| > | > | Wonder why they use proprietary parser,
| > | >
| > | > maybe because they work? ;-p
| > | | > | there are opensource
| > | > | parsers around, like elsa, or gcc c++ parser.
| > | >
| > | > Elsa does not parse C++.
| > | Elsa is for C/C++, so it says on their website.
| > I know what the website says. My comment was about the actual *uses*
| > of the parser. Have you tried it on actual C++ programs?
|
| How about gccxml:
|
| http://www.gccxml.org
It is a not C++ parser :-) -- if you're interested in function bodies
and other more fundamental things, you lose. It suffers from the same
problems (at least ones we've found quite annoying) of using GCC
currently: too much of low-level stuff directly geared to code
generation as understood by GCC now, and C++ programs are not
represented at the most abstract level (contrast that with a
celebrated C++ front-end on the market). And it also shares problems
with Elsa, no real support for templates (although the case of Elsa is
slightly "worse" :-)). Now, if you're just interested in simple
"toplevel" decls, then that might be fine :-)
-- Gaby