[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep? |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:32:20 +0000 |
> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> re is a problem with these numbers. Coverity did only analyse about one third
> of the Objective-C files in GNUstep base and most likely only the smaller
> files. Coverity at the moment has issues with Objective-C protocols and only
> works with files where there are no references to any. That means we don’t
> know how many of the 1 million lines where actually checked for defects. The
> number 0.01 is basically meaningless :-)
:-(
Where do I look to find out about this?
I don't think gnustep-base actually *uses* protocols much, so perhaps we can
figure out ways to work around this limitation?
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, (continued)
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, David Chisnall, 2018/01/22
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Patryk Laurent, 2018/01/21
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/22
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Ivan Vučica, 2018/01/24
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Ivan Vučica, 2018/01/24
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/25
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/01/25
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, David Chisnall, 2018/01/25
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Ivan Vučica, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Wolfgang Lux, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/29
- Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Fred Kiefer, 2018/01/30
Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2018/01/15