Kamil Dudka wrote:
> So you assume that your code is perfect while the tools failing to analyze it
> properly are buggy.
I don't _assume_ it. It's my _experience_ with gnulib code:
* My experience with Coverity is about 20% good findings and 80% that I can
ignore.
* My experience with 'gcc -fanalyzer' (which admittedly is novel and not
mature) is 2 interesting findings out of 29 that I analyzed. [1]
Gnulib is surely in a particular situation, with several critical reviewers
and other people who do fuzzy-testing.
Bruno
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-05/msg00118.html
