Am 26.07.2013 00:32, schrieb Terry Reedy: > I found the answer here > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5wQCOK_TiRiMWVqQ0xPaDEzbkU/edit > Coverity Integrity Level 1 is 1 (defect/1000 lines) > Level 2 is .1 (we have passed that) > Level 3 is .01 + no major defects + <20% (all all defects?) false > positives as that is their normal rate.# > > A higher false positive rates requires auditing by Coverity. They claim > "A higher false positive rate indicates misconfiguration, usage of > unusual idioms, or incorrect diagnosis of a large number of defects." > They else add "or a flaw in our analysis." > > # Since false positives should stay constant as true positives are > reduced toward 0, false / all should tend toward 1 (100%) if I > understand the ratio correctly.
About 40% of the dismissed cases are cause by a handful of issues. I have documented these issues as "known limitations" http://docs.python.org/devguide/coverity.html#known-limitations . For example about 35 false positives are related to PyLong_FromLong() and our small integer optimization. A correct modeling file would eliminate the false positive defects. My attempts don't work as hoped and I don't have access to all professional coverity tools to debug my trials. Nearly 20 false positives are caused by Py_BuildValue("N"). I'm still astonished that Coverity understands Python's reference counting most of the time. :) Did I mention that we have almost reached Level 3? All major defects have been dealt with (one of them locally on the test machine until Larry pushes his patch soonish), 4 of 7 minor issues must be closed and our dismissed rate is just little over 20% (222 out of 1054 = 21%). Christian _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
