[cfe-dev] Coverity vs Clang Static analyzer

[G Raghuram]

Manuel,
Thanks for the information. I would love to be able to help... Do let me
know some bugs I should start looking at.

50% false positives implies there is lots of scope for improvement.  Our
code base is mostly C++ with liberal usage of templates and C++11 features.

Thanks
GRR


On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:16 AM, G Raghuram <contactraghu at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> Thank you for your responses. I get a feeling that clang can do a lot of
>> things that Coverity does, so switching to it may not be a problem.
>>
>> Manuel,
>> We are using it for C++.
>>
>
> I'd say C++ is still the weak part of the analyzer (your milage might vary
> depending on how "C++" your code base actually is). We currently get > 50%
> false positives (on the Chromium code base). If you're interested in
> helping with a solution, I can point you at the bugs to start (we've found
> mainly one hairy bug that's left over - correct tracking of destructors of
> temporaries).
>
> Cheers,
> /Manuel
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:01 AM, miroslav.fontan <
>> miroslav.fontan at wincor-nixdorf.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We use Coverity, Clang, CPPCheck, PC-Lint. Each of these program reports
>>> different errors, intersection is almost empty. Coverity can find the
>>> most
>>> "real" runtime problems, false positive rate depends on aggressity level.
>>>
>>> For bugtracking we redirect all reports/outputs to the SonarQube
>>>
>>> Mira
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
>>> > On Behalf Of David Chisnall
>>> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:43 AM
>>> > To: G Raghuram
>>> > Cc: Clang Dev
>>> > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Coverity vs Clang Static analyzer
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On 20 Feb 2014, at 06:42, G Raghuram <contactraghu at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Can someone please comment on features of Clang static analyzer vs
>>> > Coverity? Does coverity catch any extra errors or can we just do a
>>> > drop-in replacement.?
>>> >
>>> > We use both for FreeBSD.  Coverity catches more things, but also has a
>>> > somewhat higher false positive rate.  Currently, the most useful
>>> > feature that Coverity has and the clang static analyser lacks is the
>>> > ability to track bugs over source code changes.  Clang requires
>>> > annotations to be placed in the source code to silence warnings.  This
>>> > is fine for our code, but a pain for third-party code where we don't
>>> > want to increase the effort for merging.  Coverity lets you flag a bug
>>> > as a false positive.  This is also nicer from a review perspective - it
>>> > lets you investigate the bugs other people have marked as false
>>> > positives and check that they really were.
>>> >
>>> > The other difference is momentum.  The clang analyser is under very
>>> > active development and it catches a lot more things than it did a year
>>> > ago.  It's also much easier to write plugins for if you want to check
>>> > for correct usage of your own APIs or idioms.
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>>> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140223/ad9558fc/attachment.html>