On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Fred Kiefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> re is a problem with these numbers. Coverity did only analyse about one >> third of the Objective-C files in GNUstep base and most likely only the >> smaller files. Coverity at the moment has issues with Objective-C protocols >> and only works with files where there are no references to any. That means >> we don’t know how many of the 1 million lines where actually checked for >> defects. The number 0.01 is basically meaningless :-) > > :-( > > Where do I look to find out about this? > I don't think gnustep-base actually *uses* protocols much, so perhaps we can > figure out ways to work around this limitation?
Also sounds like it wouldn't be very useful with OS X code unless all headers and code were stripped of protocols before processing with Coverity. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
