Hi Pat,

Trevor is working on setting it up.  He is not quite ready for people to look 
at it, yet (might be up and down a bit).  I can send out instructions when it 
is stable enough to evaluate.

Thanks,
Bill.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lankswert, Patrick
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:20 AM
> To: Dieter, William R; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> Subject: RE: Static Analysis
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I would like to see the output. How hard is it to setup?
> 
> Pat
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-
> > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Dieter, William R
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:51 AM
> > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > Subject: [dev] Static Analysis
> >
> > One of the original plans for the Linux Foundation infrastructure was
> > to use Sonar to run the SonarQube C++ plug-in.  We have run into a few
> > problems using the commercial plug-in, however there are several
> > community plug-ins for C/C++ code:
> >
> > * vera++ (for checking style)
> > * cppcheck (static analysis checking for buffer overflows, memory, and
> > other
> > problems)
> > * RATS (checking for security problems, including buffer overflows)
> >
> > We could enable these checks to run through Jenkins during verification
> builds.
> > The idea would be that the static analysis checkers could point out
> > potential problems and be an aid to code reviewers.  The tools are all
> > open source so contributors could run them locally, too.
> >
> > The implementation plan would be to first make the static analysis
> > information available, but not have it give a +1 or -1.  After some
> > period (and tweaking of rules), if the community thinks it is helpful,
> > Sonar could give a -1 when certain checks fail based on the observed track
> record.
> >
> > Before implementing this, we would like to know if there is community
> > support for it.  Is this something people would find useful?  Are
> > there any objections to just making the analysis available (without
> automatic +/-1)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev

Reply via email to