From users-return-5230-apmail-subversion-users-archive=subversion.apache.org@subversion.apache.org Thu Oct 07 20:07:25 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 39879 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2010 20:07:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2010 20:07:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 72968 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2010 20:07:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 72949 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2010 20:07:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 72942 invoked by uid 99); 7 Oct 2010 20:07:24 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:07:24 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of itamarost@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.178] (HELO mail-qy0-f178.google.com) (209.85.216.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:07:19 +0000 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so327250qyk.16 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KtctHcAH3fOV7muHybp+Ui1alnWIZLTqSKxkBieaOfU=; b=KjlG++LMyhlUh9Vq5tr1vlVYJi5Nvt3wEocFwop9oKiRTaRGl4u+y6hy+doVs0I6ZM B/fWQif8Lhnf9wC5qKhieh9vQKPxDokDyV5skx5pNm8CKifjn9Q5pHvJ1bhFHzmfV/hy oej/oc6gZ+2zwUzSqXOSs9rkU0AE37Xe+qo+g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=CqASvmyshZ1wuovM9X2wV/uCKgmv5daTMWmA5xfuU9vH7w/eIy0G1b5Bt4qocT3qnl Oy+yKGzyhYS853MeXWXGGGyRR9/846IYzP/kCXS4LrIooBe7ZYEugc8PWboKNZAw8egA iezAYeMVzG8TM731FuhFrxgKRaUBXYSoovIbY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.200.3 with SMTP id eu3mr692463qab.230.1286482018582; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.233.79 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <91CDEF316E3946318260221A65A49252@Philipp2> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:06:58 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Checked Subversions code with cppcheck From: Itamar O To: Philipp Kloke Cc: "Hyrum K. Wright" , users@subversion.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb3c9ba3f1504920c6fd7 --20cf300fb3c9ba3f1504920c6fd7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Philipp Kloke 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? --20cf300fb3c9ba3f1504920c6fd7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:04 PM,= Philipp Kloke <philipp.kloke@web.de> wrote:
?I am not sure if I am answering correctly (because I usually do not use ma= iling lists, I just selected the "Answer to all" button of my mai= l program), but I hope so.=A0

I now checked the code again, but with a newer version of cppcheck. The res= ults are in the attachement.

If you would like to try to check the code by yourself, see https://sourcefor= ge.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 power= ful commercial analysis tool (not affiliated), but the cppcheck report post= ed here has stuff that are surely detected by coverity...
Are the dev's really using the reports from scan.coverity?
--20cf300fb3c9ba3f1504920c6fd7--