From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFE72FA for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 08:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qa0-f45.google.com (mail-qa0-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477371F977 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 08:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id hw13so6638008qab.4 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:58:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140511111034.GA6400@katana> References: <20140509170709.GA9747@redhat.com> <20140511111034.GA6400@katana> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:58:42 +0200 Message-ID: From: Peter Senna Tschudin To: Wolfram Sang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] coverity, static checking etc. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I think that Julia Lawall would be interested in this topic. I've added her in CC. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> Last year I had been doing the coverity scans on an almost daily basis >> for 2-3 months. Now that we're a year in, I'd like to share some >> results, and show some of the more common trends and bug patterns that >> seem to pop up. >> >> [ spoiler: For the most part, it's all pretty positive, but we still suck ] >> >> It would also be good to have some more discussion about other tools >> we could be making more use of. (Nomination: Dan Carpenter for smatch). > > I'm definately interested. > > In my workflow, I use sparse/smatch/coccicheck/cppcheck before applying > my own work, or patches to the i2c branches. (Oh, and rats and flawfinder, > too, but so far, they didn't point to something worthwhile.) > > I am interested in workflows and experiences from other people, how > usage of static analyzers could be spread (gcc inclusion sounds great), > how to make them more robust, etc... And by doing that, get a better > feeling when an issue left the scope of static code checking and needs > some proper handling. > > Thanks, > > Wolfram > > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss > -- Peter