<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Generated on Wed, 23 May 2012 11:53:37 -0700 -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <title>Intel Software Network Comments Feed</title>
    <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>By 说说静态代码分析工具 | 编译点滴</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ n/a ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51344</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:31:03 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51344</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Ravindranath</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Good analysis! Thank you. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51362</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:13:24 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51362</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Andrey Karpov</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ It turned out that I had written a wrong thing here. There is no error in the sample with CharUpperW but nobody corrected me. I noticed it myself when I decided to implement a similar rule in PVS-Studio.

The point is that CharUpperW can handle both strings and individual characters. If the high-order part of a pointer is zero, the pointer is considered a character and not pointer any more. Of course, the WIN API interface in this place disappointed me by its poorness, but the code in Notepad++ is correct. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51545</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:57:43 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-51545</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By maht</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ What I liked about [Notepad++] is that it is written in C++ and has a small size - just 73000 lines of code. 
just
% cd /sys/src/cmd/acme # acme text editor
% wc acme/*.[ch]
...
13971   37315  269491 total

% cd /sys/src/9
% wc port/*.[ch] pc/*.[ch] # plan9 kernel and all x86 device drivers
...
136298  395353 3014277 total ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-64527</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:32:38 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/difference-of-code-analysis-approaches-in-compilers-and-specialized-tools/#comment-64527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel></rss>
