![]() ![]() If you can live within the language restrictions that naturally implies, then the solution tends to be simple. So, in summary, I suspect that whether it was Coverity or ourselves (or any other participant in the commercial SCA market) faced with the question of "do you support mycc" the answer as given by well-behaved field staff tends to be "here's our supported compiler matrix, pick from the list otherwise it's a no." The more convoluted answer revolves around how much you can make your compiler work like a gcc-type compiler, or a cl-type compiler, or an icc-type compiler, or whatever other archetypes of dialects are understood by the tool. ![]() But that is very much a field-installable customization for all commercial solutions that I know of. ![]() Once the grammar issue is sorted out, the SCA compiler needs to be educated on how the native compiler driver works, for example what switches mean what, what includes are implicit, what defines are implicit, etc. If not, then lab support is required and the job becomes more involved. That is, if you can drive your custom compiler in such a way as to enforce / require, for example, C99 grammer (perhaps with a few carefully contained extensions) then life is good and customization of an SCA solution tends to be field-installable. If the compilers to which this thread refers are highly custom, then the effort involved is greater than if they are used to within a hairs' breadth of some relevant, or at least prevalent, standard. The short answer with regard to applicability to any custom compiler situation is that "it depends." Compilers that support a ton of custom grammar are a bit of a pain for any SCA vendor to support, of course, as we have to understand what you're expressing in order to be able to analyze its correctness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |