| From: | Jeffrey Walton <noloader(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Date: | 2013-11-11 22:57:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAH8yC8n6BM2NjYchzj=O7yHim+qEMj5vuPsQAcHpZdnjkfbnWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think you are right. Coverity is a very nice tool, and Clang has
>> some growing to do.
>
> To be fair to the LLVM/Clang guys, it's not as if static analysis is a
> very high priority for them.
Absolutely. I'm very impressed with the tool (especially the dynamic
checkers). And you can't beat the price.
I'd be happy to buy every one of LLVM/Clang devs a beer :)
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-11 23:01:27 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey Walton | 2013-11-11 22:51:52 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-11 23:01:27 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey Walton | 2013-11-11 22:51:52 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |