On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Itamar O <itamarost_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Philipp Kloke <philipp.kloke_at_web.de> wrote:
>>
>> ?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use
>> mailing lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mail
>> program), but I hope so.
>>
>> I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The
>> results are in the attachement.
>>
>> If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/ (the tool is very easy to use)
>>
>
> I wonder - it seems that Subversion is covered by static-analysis from
> scan.coverity (http://scan.coverity.com/rungAll.html),
> which is a powerful commercial analysis tool (not affiliated), but the
> cppcheck report posted here has stuff that are surely detected by
> coverity...
> Are the dev's really using the reports from scan.coverity?
It's been a while since I've looked at those stats. The last time I
did, there was something wrong with the scanner which made it only
check a small subset of the code. Contacting Coverity didn't get me
very far in solving the problem. :/
Trying just now, I can't even log into the system: the login link is
broken for the Subversion project. I've emailed the admins, and
hopefully it'll get fixed. Thanks for the reminder.
-Hyrum
Received on 2010-10-07 22:26:26 CEST