When Daniel Hax ran Coverity and Clang against the curl source code, he found that the each "tool detected several issues the other didn’t spot." Coverity – ve

When Daniel Hax ran Coverity and Clang against the curl source code, he found that the each "tool detected several issues the other didn’t spot." Coverity – very accurate reports and few false positives clang-analyzer – awesome reports, missed slightly too many issues and reported slightly too many false positives [1] You'll find similar results in PVS Studio vs clang[2] and PVS Studio vs Coverity.[3] If code quality is important to your organization, than one tool is probably not enough. If it's vital, you may want to consider another language such as Haskell or OCaml. [1] http://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2012/07/12/three-static-code-analyzers-compared/ http://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2012/07/12/three-static-code-anal... [2] http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0272/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0272/ [3] http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0076/ http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0076/