Clang static analysis results for dmd
Brad Roberts
braddr at slice-2.puremagic.com
Fri Jul 29 14:49:51 PDT 2011
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.
Two real, hitable, bugs?
I still look at cost/benefit.. in that same time a number of other things
could be done that had at least as much direct benefit.
Don't get me wrong, I really love static analysis tools, but ones that are
mature and have mechanisms for managing the false positives.
Later,
Brad
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list