> No, 99.9% is junk - not things that should be fixed in the kernel,
> but things that should be suppressed in the output.
>
> Polishing the kernel source in such a way that it survives stricter testing
> than gcc does would be useful indeed. But ospc cannot be used for that
> purpose, since it is not available, and so far only has produced garbage.
> I have played a little bit with lclint yesterday, it is at least available,
> but it is not up to the task either - it gets easily confused by gcc-isms.
>
So email Derek at Knowledge Software (derek@knosof.co.uk) and tell him
what is being unnecessarily flagged and why it's unnecessary. He seems
like a reasonable guy who'd be quite willing to listen to you if you want
to bother making suggestions.
Personally, I think it's quite nice of him to go to all the trouble he has
to run the kernel through his company's product. If you give him a little
constructive criticism, I'm sure he'll listen, and then he'll make a
(hopefully small) output file of actual bugs. As it is, he's got a large
output file, a lot of which are not actually bugs, but since no one has
told him about the stuff he's unnecessarily flagging, he doesn't know to
fix the problem.
later,
chris