Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8392945
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 9, 20262026-06-09T19:39:14+00:00 2026-06-09T19:39:14+00:00

I am using splint as static analyzer for c99 code. Splint seems to be

  • 0

I am using splint as static analyzer for c99 code.

Splint seems to be not quite c99 compliant. Thus I have applied this patch:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/pipermail/splint-discuss/attachments/20080718/52cc25f6/attachment.obj

Now I get no parse errors due to declarations not beeing on top.

But I still get parse errors in for loops, if I put in the for statement a variable declaration.
For example:

for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
}

A workaround is to write it like this:

int i;
    for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){
    }

But as I dont want to adapt all my for loops, I am wondering if there is a patch available which solves this issue.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-09T19:39:16+00:00Added an answer on June 9, 2026 at 7:39 pm

    Since there is no answer yet, I just quote the wikipedia article on splint article

    Recent development activity on Splint has slowed significantly.
    According to the CVS at SourceForge, as of January 2009 the most
    recent change in the repository was in August 2008. The whole year
    2008 had only two write accesses to the repository. The maintainer has
    said that development is stagnant and the project needs new
    volunteers.

    Since declaring variables in the loop head is C99 compliant ( and argueable preferable style ), you should refrain from splint until this is fixed.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have this code to reveres the words in a sentence. using System; class
I am looking for a free static checker for C99 code (including GCC extensions)
I have a static method like this public static string DoSomethingToString(string UntrustedString) { //parse
Here's the code I'm using : public class splitText { public static void main(String[]
I have this function I am using to decrypt values that works fine on
I've seen this code lately: static List<Thread> list = new List<Thread>(); static void Main(string[]
This is my code: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Threading;
I have the following code static pthread_mutex_t watchdogMutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; static pthread_cond_t watchdogCond =
I am using Ladislav Mrnka's extension method: public static IQueryable<T> IncludeMultiple<T>(this IQueryable<T> query, params
In my code I am using requestRouteToHost() method: Does this routing means changing the

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.