Michael Metivier

My feedback

  1. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier shared this idea  · 
  2. 10 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    planned  ·  0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier shared this idea  · 
  3. 18 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier supported this idea  · 
  4. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier shared this idea  · 
  5. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier commented  · 

    In general, the "int vs. bool" is one of the largest sources of concern and confusion among our developers, who really want to know why something like "return (bool)(rv != 0);" is a required cast. We used to have an option to allow relationals to be treated as _Bool, but my understanding is that it only worked in conjunction with MISRA processing and has been removed from the newest iteration of the tool. I heartily support some way of handling this that doesn't involve a host of what appears to be superfluous casts all over the place.

    Michael Metivier supported this idea  · 
  6. 15 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    In PC-lint Plus, suppression options inside a source module do not “leak” to subsequent modules so this is less of an issue for PC-lint Plus than it was for PC-lint but we do plan to add a warning for -save options that do not have corresponding -restore options in a future update to PC-lint Plus.

    Michael Metivier supported this idea  · 
  7. 6 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier supported this idea  · 
  8. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    started  ·  2 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier shared this idea  · 
  9. 49 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Michael Metivier supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base