You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de> on 2010/10/04 14:34:49 UTC
Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
?Hi,
I used cppcheck to analyze the source code of Subversion.
Cppcheck claims to have found five errors and some style problems.
Please have a look on the result file in the attachement.
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Itamar O <it...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> ?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use
>> mailing lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mail
>> program), but I hope so.
>>
>> I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The
>> results are in the attachement.
>>
>> If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/ (the tool is very easy to use)
>>
>
> I wonder - it seems that Subversion is covered by static-analysis from
> scan.coverity (http://scan.coverity.com/rungAll.html),
> which is a powerful commercial analysis tool (not affiliated), but the
> cppcheck report posted here has stuff that are surely detected by
> coverity...
> Are the dev's really using the reports from scan.coverity?
It's been a while since I've looked at those stats. The last time I
did, there was something wrong with the scanner which made it only
check a small subset of the code. Contacting Coverity didn't get me
very far in solving the problem. :/
Trying just now, I can't even log into the system: the login link is
broken for the Subversion project. I've emailed the admins, and
hopefully it'll get fixed. Thanks for the reminder.
-Hyrum
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by Itamar O <it...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de> wrote:
> ?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use
> mailing lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mail
> program), but I hope so.
> I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The
> results are in the attachement.
>
> If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/ (the tool is very easy to use)
>
>
I wonder - it seems that Subversion is covered by static-analysis from
scan.coverity (http://scan.coverity.com/rungAll.html),
which is a powerful commercial analysis tool (not affiliated), but the
cppcheck report posted here has stuff that are surely detected by
coverity...
Are the dev's really using the reports from scan.coverity?
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de>.
?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use
mailing lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mail
program), but I hope so.
I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The
results are in the attachement.
If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/ (the tool is very easy to use)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Hyrum K. Wright
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Philipp Kloke
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de>
> wrote:
>> ?Hi,
>>
>> I used cppcheck to analyze the source code of Subversion.
>> Cppcheck claims to have found five errors and some style problems.
>>
>> Please have a look on the result file in the attachement.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I'll look at making some of these changes,
> and let you know how it goes. (In the future, as this is related to
> the development of Subversion, feel free to send this type of mail
> straight to dev@subversion.apache.org.)
I've incorporated as many fixes as I could, given the drift on trunk.
Could you rerun your tool and report the result back?
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de>.
?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use
mailing lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mail
program), but I hope so.
I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The
results are in the attachement.
If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/ (the tool is very easy to use)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Hyrum K. Wright
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Philipp Kloke
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de>
> wrote:
>> ?Hi,
>>
>> I used cppcheck to analyze the source code of Subversion.
>> Cppcheck claims to have found five errors and some style problems.
>>
>> Please have a look on the result file in the attachement.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I'll look at making some of these changes,
> and let you know how it goes. (In the future, as this is related to
> the development of Subversion, feel free to send this type of mail
> straight to dev@subversion.apache.org.)
I've incorporated as many fixes as I could, given the drift on trunk.
Could you rerun your tool and report the result back?
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de> wrote:
>> ?Hi,
>>
>> I used cppcheck to analyze the source code of Subversion.
>> Cppcheck claims to have found five errors and some style problems.
>>
>> Please have a look on the result file in the attachement.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! I'll look at making some of these changes,
> and let you know how it goes. (In the future, as this is related to
> the development of Subversion, feel free to send this type of mail
> straight to dev@subversion.apache.org.)
I've incorporated as many fixes as I could, given the drift on trunk.
Could you rerun your tool and report the result back?
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Philipp Kloke <ph...@web.de> wrote:
> ?Hi,
>
> I used cppcheck to analyze the source code of Subversion.
> Cppcheck claims to have found five errors and some style problems.
>
> Please have a look on the result file in the attachement.
Thanks for the feedback! I'll look at making some of these changes,
and let you know how it goes. (In the future, as this is related to
the development of Subversion, feel free to send this type of mail
straight to dev@subversion.apache.org.)
Best,
-Hyrum