Run Microsoft Analyzer over dmd source code

[KennyTM~]

On Aug 7, 11 22:23, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:29:20 +0300, Walter Bright
> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> It's less complex (!) if you are not trying to make a working dmd. It
>> just needs to compile.
>
> OK, that wasn't actually too bad.
> https://github.com/CyberShadow/dmd/tree/compile-on-vs10
>
> 2979 warnings with code analysis with the "Microsoft Minimum Recommended
> Rules" ruleset.
> http://dump.thecybershadow.net/2e0571641194d945869a1b12b29aacdc/DMD.log
>
> I'll see if I can get it in a more readable format (something like the
> HTML files clang's scan-build outputs).
>

Just at a glance, half of them are false positive, or is arguably safe:

1. 382 (13%) of them are C4996 (use those Microsoft _s functions)
2. 401 (13%) of them are C4068 (unknown pragma)
3. 505 (17%) of them are C6328 (passing 'signed char' to the ctype 
functions)
4. 67 (2%) of them are C6239 (true && something) or C6240 (something && 
true) - many of them are of them (!I16 && stuff), so that's legacy code 
for 16-bit platform??
5. 37 (1%) of them are C6255 (using alloca) or C6263 (using alloca in a 
loop).
6. 56 (2%) of them are C4305 or C4309 (double -> float)

And 37% of them can be caught trivially with some -Wall flag.

4. 262 (9%) of them are C4244 (stuff like int64 -> int32)
5. 415 (14%) of them are C4018 (signed/unsigned comparison)
6. 157 (5%) of them are C4101 (unused locals)
7. 50 (2%) of them are C4102 (unused labels)
8. 212 (7%) of them are C6246 or C6244 or C4258 (local variable name 
hiding outer scope)
9. 8 (0.3%) of them are C4390 ('if(stuff);')

The really interesting things:

8. 117 (4%) of them are C6211 (leak on exception) - but a bigger problem 
is DMD is using too much memory even without leaking.
9. 34 (1%) of them are C6001 (using uninitialized memory)
10. 125 (4%) of them are C6011 (NULL dereferencing)
11. 6 (0.2%) of them are C6386 and 17 (0.6%) of them are C6385 (buffer 
overrun)