> Clang and its analyzers found a number of issues a couple of years > ago. As far as I know, the results were dismissed. See "Clang 3.3 and > Scan-Build results",
Well, I can kinda sympathize. Somebody took one of my OSS projects (p0f) and ran it through a static analyzer a while ago (the analyzer shall remain nameless, but was one of the major ones). The results were just pages and pages of nonsensical findings, interspersed with non-specific style recommendations. An experience like that can quickly divide developers into two camps: the "not sure, but let me spend a week to address everything, just in case" one, and the "show me faulting test cases or get lost" bunch. I've heard it summed up this way: when a particular check is stable and reliable enough to be actually useful to most developers, it stops being called "static analysis" and becomes a "standard compiler warning" =) /mz _______________________________________________ Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
