Interesting problem you have here. While I don't understand all the
errors themselves per se, I did take a look at the root web page and a
few samples of reports, along with a glimpse at the html it generated.
My initial thought would be some sort of regex like parser that would
be very similar in
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Jason Wilkins
wrote:
> p.s., not that I'm against annotating false positives in source code
> (or better yet, rewriting in a less suspicious manner). I do not
> believe in forcing programmers to do things. However, if we ever
> wanted to require that Blender ship
While its probably possible to setup some `good enough` solution using
diff, I tend to agree with Jason - that you need something more
comprehensive so some minor edits to a file doesn't give you a lot of
changes to the diff to read through that are in fact only line number
change or re-ordered fun
p.s., not that I'm against annotating false positives in source code
(or better yet, rewriting in a less suspicious manner). I do not
believe in forcing programmers to do things. However, if we ever
wanted to require that Blender ship with zero warning flags from these
kinds of tools there is goi
If the source line changes then diff isn't a good enough tool. What
is needed is a that these programs need to maintain a database that
keeps a signature of each problem that is basically an AST of the area
affected and is independent of source line and whitespace changes.
Then you could annotate
> Running a second time gives you only the false positives again.
> If some new bug is added to the source you still needed to read over
> the false positives (unless your memory is really good).
>
> long term we need to have a way to notify us when new errors are added.
Sounds like a job for diff?
I thought that he had his own tool viva64 that PVS-Studio was based
on. I do not really want to argue politics, but I have no problem
with the fact that he has added value by integrating it with VS and
then released it without source. He honestly may not have even
modified clang that much and is
I should mention that PVS-Studio contains clang for C++ parsing and
preprocessing. As far I can see they have reimplemented some of the
clang features (missing in vc++) and have added their own diagnosis
patterns. The main feature is visual studio integration, which allows
to enable/disable diagnos
for obvious things they mostly find the same issues (even same false
positives), but each have a handful that are unique.
I've ran blender through cppcheck, splint, sparse and clang-static-checler.
the problem is that once you wade through the error logs (mainly false
positives), and fixed the act
The "Uncreated file" is a false alarm. The value of file_ is
initialized by another member function. Probably not the most clear
way to write the code, but not an error. I already contacted viva64
to suggest they tighten up that part of their analysis.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Jason Wil
Oh, the way it is written now is confusing I think, since it does
several no-ops.
Wouldn't UINT_MAX be better?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Erwin Coumans wrote:
> You are looking at the code that I fixed yesterday, see my commit message
> for details here:
> http://lists.blender.org/pipermai
You are looking at the code that I fixed yesterday, see my commit message
for details here:
http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-blender-cvs/2012-April/045090.html
>>V610 Undefined behavior. Check the shift operator '<<. The left operand
'(~0)' is negative. extern_bullet btquantizedbvh.h 82
~(0
This line in btQuantizedBvh.h confuses me:
int getTriangleIndex() const
{
btAssert(isLeafNode());
unsigned int x=0;
unsigned int y = (~(x&0))<<(31-MAX_NUM_PARTS_IN_BITS);
// Get only the lower bits where the triangle index
I'm working through them and fixing what Clang did not catch.
I was going to say the same thing as Nicholas, code analysis is such a
wide open field with virtually infinite number of things you can check
for, that having more than one tool is a good idea.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Nicholas
Not necessarily; different static analyzers can detect different types
of potential problems. The PVS analysis contains some interesting
things like the "Misprint in a homogeneous code block" section that I
don't think clang's analyzer does.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Tom M wrote:
> We have
We have a page with generated CLang static analysis,
http://clang.blenderheads.org/trunk/
It probably shows the same bugs as PVS-Studio does.
LetterRip
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Nicholas Bishop
wrote:
> I think some of these have been fixed already in recent commits from Campbell.
>
> O
I think some of these have been fixed already in recent commits from Campbell.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Jason Wilkins
wrote:
> http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0145/#ID0EO3BK
>
> It appears that Andrey Karpov has done an analysis of Blender source
> code using his PVS-Studio tool. He did this
17 matches
Mail list logo
