Mathieu Malaterre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Tommy Vercetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | On Sunday 19 June 2005 03:03, you wrote: | > | > Tommy Vercetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
