[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc -fanalyze
|
From: |
Bruno Haible |
|
Subject: |
Re: gcc -fanalyze |
|
Date: |
Tue, 12 May 2020 17:53:23 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-177-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> So you assume that your code is perfect while the tools failing to analyze it
> properly are buggy.
I don't _assume_ it. It's my _experience_ with gnulib code:
* My experience with Coverity is about 20% good findings and 80% that I can
ignore.
* My experience with 'gcc -fanalyzer' (which admittedly is novel and not
mature) is 2 interesting findings out of 29 that I analyzed. [1]
Gnulib is surely in a particular situation, with several critical reviewers
and other people who do fuzzy-testing.
Bruno
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-05/msg00118.html
- gcc -fanalyze, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/09
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Kamil Dudka, 2020/05/12
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Paul Eggert, 2020/05/12
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Kamil Dudka, 2020/05/12
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Paul Eggert, 2020/05/12
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Kamil Dudka, 2020/05/13
- Re: gcc -fanalyze, Jeffrey Walton, 2020/05/13
- Re: reclaiming memory before exit, Bruno Haible, 2020/05/14
- Re: reclaiming memory before exit, Jeffrey Walton, 2020/05/14
- Re: reclaiming memory before exit, Paul Eggert, 2020/05/14
- Re: reclaiming memory before exit, Jeffrey Walton, 2020/05/15