Coverity static analysis of Upstart?

[Adam Spragg]

On Friday 03 Jun 2011 09:55:59 James Hunt wrote:
> On 02/06/11 18:11, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:54:46PM +0100, James Hunt wrote:
> >> I'm considering submitting Upstart (and NIH) to the Coverity Scan site
> >> to allow the source code to be statically analysed:
> > 
> > Any reason not to?
> 
> Apologies for the somewhat terse mail, since it didn't really outline my
> thoughts on this: I was wondering if anyone has a view on any viable OSS
> equivalents to Coverity?
> 
> My personal view is that the OSS tooling in this area is lacking.
> Although gcc has got a lot better over time wrt warnings and checks it
> is IMHO no match for the likes of the commercial tools such as Coverity,
> Klocwork, QA C/C++, etc.
> 
> It's a shame splint has languished for so long (it doesn't even handle
> variadic macros). Maybe one day clang will provide similar capabilities...

Have you tried the clang static analyzer <http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/>?

I've not tried much in the way of the commercial tools in this area, so can't 
really compare the clang analyzer to them, but on a couple of my own source 
trees it found a couple of problems gcc missed.

Adam