https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43059
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meeks <michael.me...@collabora.com> --- Hi Stephen ! great to have you interested - of course, we're interested in throwing as much static checking as we can get at the LibreOffice code-base and fixing the results :-) Sixgill was just an idea - if there are other better analysers out there you're aware of that would be better, we should use those - but either way - thanks so much for digging into this one ! The "we produce bazillions of false-positives" angle on this that I now see in their website sounds a bit concerning ;-) Then again, we compile rather well with clang these days, so that bit should be easy. I imagine you'd need to compile all of the code to get far; but there are some smaller pieces that you could do - eg. low-level tooling to check how 'sal' works. eg. svx's 'gengal' is 1/2 way up the software stack - or rsc/Executable_rsc.mk is reasonably near the bottom. HTH ! & looking forward to you results. Thanks, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
