On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 David.Goodenough@dga.co.uk wrote:
but has anyone thought of running these against Wine?
I'm not sure if it'd do that much good. They're currently working on checking the XFree86 tree (see the Xpert mailing list archives on www.XFree86.org if you want), without a lot of big results yet. From what I gather, this tool has very limited and context-dependent intelligence,
Perhaps. But see below.
and is not conceptually very different from what a glorified version of Patrik's tools/winapi_check script might be, if given enough people working on it.
Not quite.
winapi_check is 1. Specifically written for Wine 2. A syntax analyzer 3. Mostly ad hoc.
The Stanford checker on the other hand is 1. Generalized for all C/C++ applications 2. A semantic analyzer 3. Formalized with a script language
The way I choose when designing winapi_check was the one of the easiest ways and the way they choose is one of the hardest. So just calling it is glorified winapi_check gives the Stanford people too little credit.
Anyway the way Stanford choose is really _very_ hard so what I fear is that they had to make some limiting decisions that makes their tool much less useful.
That said regardless of how good the Stanford checker really will be I'm pretty there will be a lot of things that will be _much_ easier checked by writting a script for the Stanford checker than by extending winapi_check, because they have fundamentally different design philosofies.
However don't underestimate winapi_check either. There is a lot of things that can quite easilt be checked by adding some clever perl pattern, if:s and a little state. Syntax level matching is not that bad just a little more crude.
If somebody have something that he want to be automatically checked, please post it on the list and I will see what I can do.
-
Patrik Stridvall