[mythtv] status of MythTV wrt Coverity Scan
eric at lisaneric.org
Thu May 10 01:02:07 UTC 2012
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Preston Crow
<pc-mythtv08a at crowcastle.net> wrote:
> In my experience with Coverity, while many of the defects will be false
> positives, most of the time changing the code to avoid the false positive
> results in cleaner code.
Sometimes that's true.
Often a false positive happens when following an impossible code path
which, if Coverity were a little smarter, it should be able to figure
out was impossible. However, this kind of code is often brittle.
Future edits might make such paths possible, so code becomes more
robust if the defect is "fixed".
Other times Coverity is just plain wrong and is best just ignored.
Over the last few months I've been testing clang, Coverity, and
Klocwork. Coverity has been the clear leader.
More information about the mythtv-dev