> Am 29.01.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Fred Kiefer <fredkie...@gmx.de>: > > > >> 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 think that is a misunderstanding. ObjCTypeParamType is the syntactic category related to type parameters of generic types. For instance, given a declaration NSArray<ElemType> *array; ElemType is the type parameter here and it signals that the array should contain only instances of ElemType. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev