Which is the best static code analysis tool to use in the verifone POS projects?
Does it have any particularity or I can use any C analysis tool like SonarQube?
Nope, nothing special that would prevent any standard C / C++ static analysis tool from working. I don't know anything about SonarQube specifically, but I've used Klockwork in the past and I run ReSharper C++ currently. In both cases, there was a bit of configuration that needed to be done for it to work properly, but in the end, it worked.
NOTE that the VeriFone terminals use ARM processors, so if your tool was built in such a way that it was specific to the x86/x64 architectures, then you may have some difficulties, but I don't think that will generally be a problem. If I remember correctly, Klockwork stumbled on this and I had to get their tech support involved to get it configured to build for ARM... like I said, if I remember correctly--it was several years ago.
Related
I am getting certain errors while running VTUNE stand alone, but every thing works fine if I run it from MSVC IDE.
Will there be any reporting inaccuracy if I run VTUNE from inside the MSVC?
Which VTune version do you use? In general MSVS-integrated version of VTune provides exactly the same functionality as "Standalone". And of course there is no difference in accuracy at all.
MSVS vs. "Standalone" choice is a matter of your application and working style. In case you use MSVS for development purposes (and thus you have solution and sources integrated), using MSVS integrated version should be more convinient in terms of "more automation" for source viewpoints. At the same time some people prefer to use profiler in standalone manner, because their solutions are already overloading IDE process, however it's a rare case even for big legacy industry codes.
Side note: across other Parallel Studio tools (VTune, Inspector and Advisor XE, as well as Composer=Compiler+Libraries) - you may really find features enabled in different ways in MSVS and Linux/Standalone. Examples: 1. Inspector debugger integration with cl vs. gcc/gdb 2. Advisor Annotation Wizard vs. Assistance window. However VTune doesn't have even those small variations between hosts.
I am converting several modules from OCaml to F#. To hunt bugs and verify some of the finer differences I am running both versions against the same test case at the same time.
For F# I am using the Visual Studio debugger and for OCaml I am using ocamldebug. Since Visual Studio is a GUI and ocamldebug is a command line, making the comparisons requires more attention than back and forth visual scanning.
I was wondering if there is any OCaml IDE that supports a GUI debugger with stepping while showing the source line highlighted and separate window to display values.
EDIT
I did some more looking after Jack posted an answer and then remembered why I didn't pick one a few months ago when I did this.
The reasons I am passing on the ones I find and staying with the OCaml command line tools are
The command line tools come with the compiler, so they are current and work. There is some documentation on the tools, but honestly I did have to spend a few hours writing my own ocamldebug manual with examples to become proficient with ocamldebug.
They rely on EMACS. It's not EMACS but me; I just hate the way it works. Also all of the tools working with EMACS I found they are just wrappers around ocamldebug. So nothing gained but more memorization of commands. Note: EMACS is actively maintained and updated.
They rely on Eclipse. I have used Eclipse a lot for working with ANTLR, but I only make a system every few years and have very good notes on it so it is worth my time. Once I get Eclipse working for a major ANTLR release, I don't update it again for years. For the small amount of time I plan on debugging OCaml, the cost is too high. Note: Eclipse is actively maintained and updated.
They don't do debugging. Since there are so few GUI tools for OCaml, even an enhanced editor is a benefit for some. Not for me at this time.
The tool/plug-in has not been maintained for some years.
This not a put down of OCaml, just the details as I find them. I don't have a problem with OCaml, I just wish I was more productive with it.
I think most people are just using the OCaml debugger (ocamldebug) from within emacs (see the bottom of that page for details).
I don't know if it supports debugging (yet), but the TypeRex OCaml Programming Studio looks like an interesting project.
Finally, there are some old, unmaintained Eclipse plugins you could try (e.g., Camelia), though I suspect they've bit-rotted for too long to be of much use at this point.
I was unable to find an OCaml GUI debugger with the same ability as Visual Studio using F# that meet my requirements.
If someone does find one or creates one and post that as an answer I will gladly give them them accept vote.
I was wondering if there is any OCaml IDE that supports a GUI debugger with stepping while showing the source line highlighted and separate window to display values.
I'm only just getting back into OCaml and Linux now after a 4 year break but, last I looked, Linux had very poor GUI libraries and OCaml had very poor interoperability so nobody ever got very far writing non-trivial GUI applications in OCaml.
I'm writing a teaching tutorial to teach university students and programming enthusiasts Compilation concepts on an x86.
I want an IDE tool like WinASM for them to be able to debug their work, but am aware that they may not all run Windows at home.
Is my best choice to target Jasmin? (Or have you got a better suggestion - and why?)
Another approach I've seen is to use a common teaching architecture (such as MIPS) and run it under emulation. For MIPS in particular, there are lots of interactive simulators (like SPIM), as well as full system emulators (like QEMU). The fact that the MIPS architecture is considerably simpler (and less register-starved!) than x86 is definitely a plus as well -- it means you can spend more time focusing on interesting compilation topics, rather than teaching the architecture.
This is another approach (although poor for debugging) - executing assembler inline in C++
A C repl that generates ASM - for learning about the assembler generated.
Also you could just rely on old gdb.
Have you ever considered an online debugging tool? There are a few of them out there. I personally like this asm debugger.
After trying to get jinc compiled under windows and quickly running into hundreds of compiler errors I'm looking for a quality BDD library that will build for windows. Preferably in C or C++ but as long as I can bind to it I'm happy.
I recently wrestled with installing the CUDD v2.4.2 in a Windows / Visual Studio environment.
There is documentation out there, but in my opinion none of it gives the complete picture of how to install the thing and get it working in non-Unix environments. For example, how to address the issues with the Makefile, how to link to the *.a C archive files in your project, minor issues with the cpu_stats.c file, etc. This is a shame because CUDD seems to be quite a powerful means of reducing complexity for many problems, such as integer programming.
I recently managed to get it going in VS 2010. My blog details here.
Cudd is is good : http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~fabio/CUDD/ I have compiled it in Visual Studio 2005.
There seems to exist pre compiled binaries : http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~alanmi/research/soft/softPorts.htm
As an ex researcher, I can tell you that two years ago, Cudd was the best in class regarding efficiency.
Biddy is becoming better and better.. http://biddy.meolic.com/
OK, this is a subjective claim, because I am the main author of Biddy. However, while Biddy does not have so many functions and it does not
have so robust and improved memory management and it has not
been tested in so many projects as CUDD, it is a viable library.
By using it, you can help to improve it. My group is active and flexible
and we can implement any function you need.
What are the best IDE's / IDE plugins / Tools, etc for programming with CUDA / MPI etc?
I've been working in these frameworks for a short while but feel like the IDE could be doing more heavy lifting in terms of scaling and job processing interactions.
(I usually use Eclipse or Netbeans, and usually in C/C++ with occasional Java, and its a vague question but I can't think of any more specific way to put it)
This is not really an answer, but I feel so confined by the comment box ...
I do a fair amount of MPI programming, OpenMP too, but not CUDA and GPU stuff. I write mainly Fortran, some C++. I'm still using Emacs as my editor, and for the other things that Emacs does well. I use a separate parallel debugger (DDT, I've used TotalView in the past, more a question of which one is on the machine than which one I prefer) and a performance profiling tool called OPT (like DDT produced by Allinea Software).
I have looked, though not for a year or so, for plug-ins for NetBeans and Eclipse (former preferred, latter too Java-centric and too heavy these days) for parallel programming. What's out there is better for C++ than for Fortran. But I haven't yet come across any plug-in which has really made it far enough out of the research lab to be useful enough to make me change from the old ways.
I'll be as interested as you to see what other SOers recommend though right now it doesn't look very promising.