Clang static analysis results for dmd

[Walter Bright]

On 7/29/2011 1:30 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> 2) if the tool has trouble analyzing the code, there's a not unreasonable
> chance a person also has trouble.  The above case is a good one where
> depending on how close those two if's are in the code and how obvious it
> is that B is a super set of A, it's the kind of thing someone's going to
> have trouble with too.

In general I agree with this, which is why I've made some changes to the source 
code to 'fix' some of the non-bugs identified by clang. I felt the changes made 
the code more readable.


> By and large though, this isn't the way I'd spend my time, unless you goal
> is to reduce test cases to feed into clang to improve it.  The
> cost/benefit ratio just doesn't meet the bar.

So far, two real bugs have been identified. This makes it worth one pass through 
the clang results, but as you say, the rate of false positives is so high it is 
not worth continuing to use it.