> Am 29.01.2018 um 11:32 schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald > <richard.frith-macdon...@theengagehub.com>: > >> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Fred Kiefer <fredkie...@gmx.de> 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?
When running Coverity it reports these numbers (I would like to paste the messages here, but copy/paste is not working in my virtual machine :-( It says that 54 Objective-C (27%) files where „emitted“ and 93 (36%) are ready for analysis. As for the protocols, this is just how I translate this message from Coverity: cov-internal-emit-clang-main.cpp:5: assertion failure: xlate-ast-types.cpp:1807: assertion failed: ObjCTypeParamType translation not implemented. If you look at the clang code you see that ObjCTypeParamType was introduced to support protocols. I asked David for some explanations here up to now with any reply. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
