On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Philipp Kloke <philipp.kl...@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?
