Type Qualifiers As Composable Language Extensions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Type Qualifiers As Composable Language Extensions Type Qualifiers as Composable Language Extensions Travis Carlson Eric Van Wyk Computer Science and Engineering Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN, USA Minneapolis, MN, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction and Motivation This paper reformulates type qualifiers as language exten- Type qualifiers in C and C++, such as const or restrict, sions that can be automatically and reliably composed. Type enable the programmer to disallow certain operations on qualifiers annotate type expressions to introduce new sub- qualified types and to indicate simple subtype relationships typing relations and are powerful enough to detect many between types. For example, only initializing assignments kinds of errors. Type qualifiers, as illustrated in our ableC are allowed on a variable declared with a const qualifier, extensible language framework for C, can introduce rich and a function with an argument declaration int *x cannot forms of concrete syntax, can generate dynamic checks on be passed a value of type const int * as this would allow data when static checks are infeasible or not appropriate, and changes to the const int via the pointer. The type int * inject code that affects the program’s behavior, for example is considered to be a subtype of const int *. for conversions of data or logging. In their seminal paper “A Theory of Type Qualifiers”, Fos- ableC language extensions to C are implemented as at- ter et al.[12] formalize this subtyping relationship and show tribute grammar fragments and provide an expressive mech- how user-defined type qualifiers can be added to a language anism for type qualifier implementations to check for ad- to perform additional kinds of checking. One example is a ditional errors, e.g. dereferences to pointers not qualified nonnull qualifier for pointer types to indicate that the value by a “nonnull” qualifier, and report custom error messages. of the pointer is not null. A pointer p declared as Our approach distinguishes language extension users from int * nonnull p = &v; developers and provides modular analyses to developers to can be passed to a function as a parameter declared to have ensure that when users select a set of extensions to use, they type int *, but the reverse of passing an int * value as a will automatically compose to form a working compiler. parameter with type int * nonnull is disallowed. Further- more, dereferences to pointers whose type is not qualified CCS Concepts • Software and its engineering → Ex- as nonnull raise errors. On the other hand, the qualifier tensible languages; Data types and structures; Transla- tainted induces a different subtype relationship in which tor writing systems and compiler generators; the type char * is a subtype of tainted char *, thus pre- Keywords type qualifiers, type systems, pluggable types, venting a value with this qualified type to be used where extensible languages, dimensional analysis an unqualified one is expected. These subtype relationships, which form a lattice of qualified types, are described in more ACM Reference Format: detail in Section2. In their paper, the qualifiers are called Travis Carlson and Eric Van Wyk. 2017. Type Qualifiers as Com- “user-defined” and it is a programmer that specifies anew posable Language Extensions. In Proceedings of 16th ACM SIG- qualifier, the form of subtype relationship that it induces, PLAN International Conference on Generative Programming: Con- and the operations that it disallows. cepts and Experiences (GPCE’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13 pages. In this paper we reformulate these and other type qual- https://doi.org/10.1145/3136040.3136055 ifiers as language extensions in the ableC extensible lan- guage framework for C [17]. In the approach, we make a Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for clear distinction between the independent parties that may personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies develop various language extensions and the extension users are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that (programmers) that may select the extensions that address copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must their task at hand. These extensions may add new domain- be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or specific syntax (notations) or semantic analyses to their host republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific language, in this case C. While extension developers must permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. understand the underlying language implementation mech- GPCE’17, October 23–24, 2017, Vancouver, Canada anisms used in ableC, the guarantees of composability pro- © 2017 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed vided by ableC and its supporting tools ensure that the users to Association for Computing Machinery. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5524-7/17/10...$15.00 of extensions do not. https://doi.org/10.1145/3136040.3136055 91 GPCE’17, October 23–24, 2017, Vancouver, Canada Travis Carlson and Eric Van Wyk typedef datatype Expr Expr; Use of watch type qualifier: datatype Expr { watch int sum = 0; Add (Expr * nonnull, Expr * nonnull); for (int i=1; i < 4; ++i) { sum = sum + i; } Mul (Expr * nonnull, Expr * nonnull); Translation to C of assignment to sum: Const (int); sum = ({ int tmp = sum + i; }; printf("example.xc:3: (sum) = %d\n", tmp); tmp; }); int value (Expr * nonnull e) { match (*e) { Output: Add (e1, e2) -> { return value(e1) + value(e2); } example.xc:1: (sum) = 0 Mul (e1, e2) -> { return value(e1) * value(e2); } example.xc:3: (sum) = 1 Const (v) -> { return v; } example.xc:3: (sum) = 3 } example.xc:3: (sum) = 6 } Figure 2. Code insertion by watch type qualifier. Figure 1. Algebraic datatype and nonnull extensions. or appropriate, or computations to perform data conversion or generate print statements to monitor a changing variable Language extension specifications for ableC are written, as is done with the watch type qualifier shown in Figure2. as described in Section3, as context free grammars (for con- crete syntax) and attribute grammars (for semantic analy- Contributions: This paper reformulates type qualifier work sis and code generation). The underlying tools that process of Foster et al.[12] in an extensible setting with guarantees these specifications provide modular analyses of language of composability for independently-developed type qualifier extension specifications that an extension developer uses to extensions, extended with a more expressive mechanism for ensure that their extension will automatically and reliably specifying new static checks based on type qualifiers and compose with other independently-developed extensions handling of parameterized type qualifiers (Section3). that also pass these analyses. This relieves the extension We describe a refactoring and extension of previously users (programmers) of needing to know about the underly- ad-hoc handling of type qualifiers in ableC to support: ing tools and techniques and thus frees extension designers • Mechanisms for distinguishing behavior of type quali- to write expressive language extensions that introduce new fier checking on code written by a programmer versus syntax and semantic analysis with the knowledge that their code generated by a language extension or included extension will be easily used by programmers as long as it by the C preprocessor ( Section 4.1). passes the modular analyses. • A technique for automatically combining type quali- While this requires more sophistication of the extension fier annotations to library headers from multiple ex- developer, this approach does provide them with the tools tensions to alleviate a manual process in Cqal, Foster for writing more syntactically and semantically expressive et al.’s implementation of user-defined type qualifiers type qualifiers than possible in other approaches. Syntacti- in C (Section 4.2). cally, type qualifiers can define their own sub-language, e.g. • Mechanisms for type qualifiers to be specific to a type units(kg*m^2) which specifies a SI measurement in new- (and generate errors when applied to other types) and tons. Another example is the sample program in Figure1 for type qualifiers to be independent of the type they that uses two language extensions: one introducing alge- qualify (Section5). braic datatypes similar to those in Standard ML and Haskell, • Qualifiers that add dynamic checks of data when static and another introducing a nonnull qualifier like the one de- checks are not feasible or appropriate (Section6). scribed above. Here the algebraic datatype extension is used • Qualifiers that perform runtime conversion of data or to declare a datatype for simple arithmetic expressions and otherwise insert additional code (Section7). to write a function to compute their value. This value func- We demonstrate several type qualifiers such as nonnull tion takes pointers to expressions qualified as nonnull. The and qualifiers to indicate functions as being pure and associa- programmer writing this code would have imported both tive, qualifiers with richer syntax such as one for dimension of these independently-developed language extensions into analysis to check that physical measurement units (e.g. me- ableC in order to use both extensions in the same program. ters, seconds, etc.) are used correctly, extensions that insert Type qualifiers specified as ableC extensions can perform code such as dynamic array bound checks, the watch quali- the sort of analysis exemplified by a nonnull qualifier but fier, and data conversion (e.g. scaling values in millimeters they can also introduce code into the C program that is to meters in the dimension analysis extension). generated from the extended ableC program. These can be Section8 discusses related work before Section9 discusses dynamic checks of data when static checks are not possible some future work and concludes.
Recommended publications
  • 1.1 Introduction to C Language
    1.1 Introduction to C Language 1 Department of CSE Objectives • To understand the structure of a C-Language Program • To write a minimal C program • To introduce the include preprocessor command • To be able to create good identifiers for quantities in a program • To be able to list, describe and use the basic data types in C • To be able to create and use variables and constants in a C program 2 Department of CSE Agenda • Background of C Language • Structure of a C program • C Comments • Identifiers in C • Data types in C • Variables in C • Constants in C 3 Department of CSE Background of C • C is a middle level language it combines the best elements of high-level languages with the control and flexibility of assembly language • Like most modern languages, C is also derived from ALGOL 60 (1960) • Developed by Dennis Ritchie in 1972 using many concepts from its predecessors – ALGOL,BCPL and B and by adding the concept of data types • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) began the standardization of C in 1983 which was approved in 1989 • In 1990 International Standards Organization (ISO) adopted the ANSI standard version known as C89 • Minor changes were made to C89 in 1995 which came to be known as C95 • Much more significant updates were made in 1999 and named as C99 4 Department of CSE Features of C • C is a structured programming language which allows compartmentalization of code and data • A structured language offers a variety of programming possibilities. For example, structured languages typically support several loop constructs, such as while, do-while, and for.
    [Show full text]
  • Undefined Behaviour in the C Language
    FAKULTA INFORMATIKY, MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Undefined Behaviour in the C Language BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE Tobiáš Kamenický Brno, květen 2015 Declaration Hereby I declare, that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out by my own. All sources, references, and literature used or excerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in complete reference to the due source. Vedoucí práce: RNDr. Adam Rambousek ii Acknowledgements I am very grateful to my supervisor Miroslav Franc for his guidance, invaluable help and feedback throughout the work on this thesis. iii Summary This bachelor’s thesis deals with the concept of undefined behavior and its aspects. It explains some specific undefined behaviors extracted from the C standard and provides each with a detailed description from the view of a programmer and a tester. It summarizes the possibilities to prevent and to test these undefined behaviors. To achieve that, some compilers and tools are introduced and further described. The thesis contains a set of example programs to ease the understanding of the discussed undefined behaviors. Keywords undefined behavior, C, testing, detection, secure coding, analysis tools, standard, programming language iv Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii Summary .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ACCU 2015 “New” Features in C
    "New" Features in C ACCU 2015 “New” Features in C Dan Saks Saks & Associates www.dansaks.com 1 Abstract The first international standard for the C programming language was C90. Since then, two newer standards have been published, C99 and C11. C99 introduced a significant number of new features. C11 introduced a few more, some of which have been available in compilers for some time. Curiously, many of these added features don’t seem to have caught on. Many C programmers still program in C90. This session explains many of these “new” features, including declarations in for-statements, typedef redefinitions, inline functions, complex arithmetic, extended integer types, variable- length arrays, flexible array members, compound literals, designated initializers, restricted pointers, type-qualified array parameters, anonymous structures and unions, alignment support, non-returning functions, and static assertions. 2 Copyright © 2015 by Daniel Saks 1 "New" Features in C About Dan Saks Dan Saks is the president of Saks & Associates, which offers training and consulting in C and C++ and their use in developing embedded systems. Dan has written columns for numerous print publications including The C/C++ Users Journal , The C++ Report , Software Development , and Embedded Systems Design . He currently writes the online “Programming Pointers” column for embedded.com . With Thomas Plum, he wrote C++ Programming Guidelines , which won a 1992 Computer Language Magazine Productivity Award . He has also been a Microsoft MVP. Dan has taught thousands of programmers around the world. He has presented at conferences such as Software Development and Embedded Systems , and served on the advisory boards for those conferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Software II: Principles of Programming Languages
    Software II: Principles of Programming Languages Lecture 6 – Data Types Some Basic Definitions • A data type defines a collection of data objects and a set of predefined operations on those objects • A descriptor is the collection of the attributes of a variable • An object represents an instance of a user- defined (abstract data) type • One design issue for all data types: What operations are defined and how are they specified? Primitive Data Types • Almost all programming languages provide a set of primitive data types • Primitive data types: Those not defined in terms of other data types • Some primitive data types are merely reflections of the hardware • Others require only a little non-hardware support for their implementation The Integer Data Type • Almost always an exact reflection of the hardware so the mapping is trivial • There may be as many as eight different integer types in a language • Java’s signed integer sizes: byte , short , int , long The Floating Point Data Type • Model real numbers, but only as approximations • Languages for scientific use support at least two floating-point types (e.g., float and double ; sometimes more • Usually exactly like the hardware, but not always • IEEE Floating-Point Standard 754 Complex Data Type • Some languages support a complex type, e.g., C99, Fortran, and Python • Each value consists of two floats, the real part and the imaginary part • Literal form real component – (in Fortran: (7, 3) imaginary – (in Python): (7 + 3j) component The Decimal Data Type • For business applications (money)
    [Show full text]
  • Intel ® Fortran Programmer's Reference
    ® Intel Fortran Programmer’s Reference Copyright © 1996-2003 Intel Corporation All Rights Reserved Issued in U.S.A. Version Number: FWL-710-02 World Wide Web: http://developer.intel.com Information in this document is provided in connection with Intel products. No license, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights is granted by this document. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN INTEL’S TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE FOR SUCH PRODUCTS, INTEL ASSUMES NO LIABILITY WHATSO- EVER, AND INTEL DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY, RELATING TO SALE AND/OR USE OF INTEL PRODUCTS INCLUDING LIABILITY OR WARRANTIES RELATING TO FITNESS FOR A PAR- TICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT. Intel products are not intended for use in medical, life saving, or life sustaining applications. This Intel® Fortran Programmer’s Reference as well as the software described in it is furnished under license and may only be used or copied in accordance with the terms of the license. The information in this manual is furnished for infor- mational use only, is subject to change without notice, and should not be construed as a commitment by Intel Corpora- tion. Intel Corporation assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear in this document or any software that may be provided in association with this document. Designers must not rely on the absence or characteristics of any features or instructions marked "reserved" or "unde- fined." Intel reserves these for future definition and shall have no responsibility whatsoever for conflicts or incompatibil- ities arising from future changes to them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple, Possibly Correct LR Parser for C11 Jacques-Henri Jourdan, François Pottier
    A Simple, Possibly Correct LR Parser for C11 Jacques-Henri Jourdan, François Pottier To cite this version: Jacques-Henri Jourdan, François Pottier. A Simple, Possibly Correct LR Parser for C11. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), ACM, 2017, 39 (4), pp.1 - 36. 10.1145/3064848. hal-01633123 HAL Id: hal-01633123 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01633123 Submitted on 11 Nov 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 14 A simple, possibly correct LR parser for C11 Jacques-Henri Jourdan, Inria Paris, MPI-SWS François Pottier, Inria Paris The syntax of the C programming language is described in the C11 standard by an ambiguous context-free grammar, accompanied with English prose that describes the concept of “scope” and indicates how certain ambiguous code fragments should be interpreted. Based on these elements, the problem of implementing a compliant C11 parser is not entirely trivial. We review the main sources of difficulty and describe a relatively simple solution to the problem. Our solution employs the well-known technique of combining an LALR(1) parser with a “lexical feedback” mechanism. It draws on folklore knowledge and adds several original as- pects, including: a twist on lexical feedback that allows a smooth interaction with lookahead; a simplified and powerful treatment of scopes; and a few amendments in the grammar.
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating Scope and Selection Restrictions in Compiler Optimizations
    ELIMINATING SCOPE AND SELECTION RESTRICTIONS IN COMPILER OPTIMIZATION SPYRIDON TRIANTAFYLLIS ADISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE SEPTEMBER 2006 c Copyright by Spyridon Triantafyllis, 2006. All Rights Reserved Abstract To meet the challenges presented by the performance requirements of modern architectures, compilers have been augmented with a rich set of aggressive optimizing transformations. However, the overall compilation model within which these transformations operate has remained fundamentally unchanged. This model imposes restrictions on these transforma- tions’ application, limiting their effectiveness. First, procedure-based compilation limits code transformations within a single proce- dure’s boundaries, which may not present an ideal optimization scope. Although aggres- sive inlining and interprocedural optimization can alleviate this problem, code growth and compile time considerations limit their applicability. Second, by applying a uniform optimization process on all codes, compilers cannot meet the particular optimization needs of each code segment. Although the optimization process is tailored by heuristics that attempt to a priori judge the effect of each transfor- mation on final code quality, the unpredictability of modern optimization routines and the complexity of the target architectures severely limit the accuracy of such predictions. This thesis focuses on removing these restrictions through two novel compilation frame- work modifications, Procedure Boundary Elimination (PBE) and Optimization-Space Ex- ploration (OSE). PBE forms compilation units independent of the original procedures. This is achieved by unifying the entire application into a whole-program control-flow graph, allowing the compiler to repartition this graph into free-form regions, making analysis and optimization routines able to operate on these generalized compilation units.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Type Qualifiers
    A Theory of Type Qualifiers∗ Jeffrey S. Foster Manuel F¨ahndrich Alexander Aiken [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] EECS Department University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1776 Abstract Purify [Pur]), which test for properties in a particular pro- gram execution. We describe a framework for adding type qualifiers to a lan- A canonical example of a type qualifier from the C world guage. Type qualifiers encode a simple but highly useful is the ANSI C qualifier const. A variable with a type an- form of subtyping. Our framework extends standard type notated with const can be initialized but not updated.1 A rules to model the flow of qualifiers through a program, primary use of const is annotating pointer-valued function where each qualifier or set of qualifiers comes with addi- parameters as not being updated by the function. Not only tional rules that capture its semantics. Our framework al- is this information useful to a caller of the function, but it lows types to be polymorphic in the type qualifiers. We is automatically verified by the compiler (up to casting). present a const-inference system for C as an example appli- Another example is Evans's lclint [Eva96], which intro- cation of the framework. We show that for a set of real C duces a large number of additional qualifier-like annotations programs, many more consts can be used than are actually to C as an aid to debugging memory usage errors. One present in the original code. such annotation is nonnull, which indicates that a pointer value must not be null.
    [Show full text]
  • C and C++ Programming for the Vector Processor
    C AND C++ PROGRAMMING FOR THE VECTOR PROCESSOR Geir Johansen, Cray Inc., Mendota Heights, Minnesota, USA Abstract: The Cray Standard C and C++ compilers have the ability to perform many types of optimizations to improve the performance of the code. This paper outlines strategies for C and C++ programming that will give the Cray Standard C and C++ compilers a greater opportunity to generate optimized code. 1.0 Scope of the Paper PDGCS (Program Dependence Graph Compiling System) is the area of the compiler The purpose of this is to give guidance to C that performs most of the optimization of the and C++ developers in writing code, so that the code. PDGCS has been a part of the compiler Cray compiler will produce better optimized since the Cray YMP. The Cray C/C++ compiler code. An algorithm can be coded in several greatly benefits from the fact that PDGCS is also different ways; however, the Cray compiler can the backend for the Cray Fortran compiler. The more easily optimize certain styles of coding. Cray C/C++ compiler leverages the extensive The more optimization that is initially performed testing and development to PDGCS for the Cray by the compiler, the less time the user needs to Fortran compiler. Optimizations that PDGCS spend on analyzing and manually optimizing the perform include: code. The paper is not intended for a specific Cray architecture, so in general, machine specific ∑ Reduction loops optimization issues such as memory contention ∑ Loop fusing are not discussed. Also, the paper does not ∑ Loop unrolling discuss optimization techniques, such as loop ∑ Loop unwinding fusing, that can be performed by the compiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Restrict-Like Aliasing Semantics for C++ Abstract
    Document Number: N3988 Date: 2014-05-23 Authors: Hal Finkel, [email protected] Hubert Tong, [email protected] Chandler Carruth, [email protected], Clark Nelson, [email protected], Daveed Vandevoode, [email protected], Michael Wong, [email protected] Project: Programming Language C++, EWG Reply to: [email protected] Revision: 1 Towards restrict-like aliasing semantics for C++ Abstract This paper is a follow-on to N3635 after a design discussion with many compiler implementers at Issaquah, and afterwards by telecon, and specifically proposes a new alias_set attribute as a way to partition type-based aliasing to enable more fine grain control, effectively giving C++ a more complete restrict-like aliasing syntax and semantics. Changes from previous papers: N3988: this paper updates with syntax and semantics N3635: Outlined initial idea on AliasGroup which became alias_set. The alternative of newType was rejected as too heavy weight of a solution. 1. Problem Domain There is no question that the restrict qualifier benefits compiler optimization in many ways, notably allowing improved code motion and elimination of loads and stores. Since the introduction of C99 restrict, it has been provided as a C++ extension in many compilers. But the feature is brittle in C++ without clear rules for C++ syntax and semantics. Now with the introduction of C++11, functors are being replaced with lambdas and users have begun asking how to use restrict in the presence of lambdas. Given the existing compiler support, we need to provide a solution with well-defined C++ semantics, before use of some common subset of C99 restrict becomes widely used in combination with C++11 constructs.
    [Show full text]
  • TMS320C6000 Optimizing Compiler V8.2.X User's Guide (Rev. B)
    TMS320C6000 Optimizing Compiler v8.2.x User's Guide Literature Number: SPRUI04B May 2017 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction to the Software Development Tools.................................................................... 14 1.1 Software Development Tools Overview ................................................................................. 15 1.2 Compiler Interface.......................................................................................................... 16 1.3 ANSI/ISO Standard ........................................................................................................ 16 1.4 Output Files ................................................................................................................. 17 1.5 Utilities ....................................................................................................................... 17 2 Getting Started with the Code Generation Tools .................................................................... 18 2.1 How Code Composer Studio Projects Use the Compiler ............................................................. 18 2.2 Compiling from the Command Line ..................................................................................... 19 3 Using the C/C++ Compiler ................................................................................................... 20 3.1 About the Compiler........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lclint User's Guide
    ÿþÿýüû LCLint User’s Guide ÿ Version 2.5 May 2000 David Evans University of Virginia Department of Computer Science ii LCLint User’s Guide Acknowledgments John Guttag and Jim Horning had the original idea for LCLint, have provided valuable advice on its functionality and design, and been instrumental in its development. This work has also benefited greatly from discussions with Mike Burrows, Stephen Garland, Colin Godfrey, Steve Harrison, Yanlin Huang, Daniel Jackson, John Knight, David Larochelle, Angelika Leeb, Ulana Legedza, Anya Pogosyants, Avneesh Saxena, Seejo Sebastine, Navneet Singh, Raymie Stata, Yang Meng Tan, and Mark Vandevoorde. I especially thank Angelika Leeb for many constructive comments on improving this document, Raymie Stata for help designing and setting up the LCLint web site, Mark Vandevoorde for technical assistance, and Dorothy Curtis and Paco Hope for systems assistance. Much of LCLint’s development has been driven by feedback from users in academia and industry. Many more people than I can mention here have made contributions by suggesting improvements, reporting bugs, porting early versions of LCLint to other platforms. Particularly heroic contributions have been made by Eric Bloodworth, Jutta Degener, Rick Farnbach, Chris Flatters, Huver Hu, John Gerard Malecki, Thomas G. McWilliams, Michael Meskes, Richard O’Keefe, Jens Schweikhardt, and Albert L. Ting. Martin “Herbert” Dietze and Mike Smith performed valiantly in producing the original Win32 and OS2 ports. LCLint incorporates the original LCL checker developed by Yang Meng Tan. This was built on the DECspec Project (Joe Wild, Gary Feldman, Steve Garland, and Bill McKeeman). The LSL checker used by LCLint was developed by Steve Garland.
    [Show full text]