On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Itamar O <itamar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
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
