3 ms·

PVS-Studio vs Compilers: Clang: https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0108/ https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0108/ , https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0155/ https://www.viva64.com/

• geofft 8y ago
  Those seem like potential bugs in GCC/Clang - that doesn't say whether GCC compiled with GCC or Clang compiled with Clang would produce the same warnings. Does GCC compile cleanly with gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror?
• acdha 8y ago
  Do you have Clang tests which are more recent than 8 years ago? Or, especially, any which were validated and accepted upstream?
  • AndreyKarpov 8y ago
    The last check was in 2016: https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0446/ https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0446/ . Yes, it was few years ago because we were not interested in writing the same articles again and again. There are a lot of other interesting projects in the world: https://www.viva64.com/en/inspections/ https://www.viva64.com/en/inspections/ . I also want to note that you assume that Clang was worse than PVS-Studio long time ago but now it can catch up. To that, I will say that all these years we’ve been working on analyzer development :). By the way, here is where you can read about the way it works: "Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities" - https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0592/ https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0592/
    • acdha 8y ago
      More simply, I'm just curious about what, as a developer in 2019, would be the selling point for using it if you were on a project which was relatively clean using Clang's warnings and static analysis toolchain, flawfinder, etc.