Comments on: Three static code analyzers compared

By: Kristofer Pettersson

Kristofer Pettersson — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:11:55 +0000

Nice blog. Maybe this tool can add something to your list
http://labs.oracle.com/projects/parfait/

By: JoachimS

JoachimS — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:16:57 +0000

Aloha!

Dunno if you saw it, but Carmac did a similar test and writeup that has some good pointers re static code analusis. He also tested the tool suggested by Andrey.

http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/24/static-code-analysis/

By: daniel

daniel — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:47:56 +0000

@Andrey: I run and use Linux. Please come back when I can run your tool on Linux and I will love trying it out!

By: Andrey

Andrey — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:55:43 +0000

Hello.

I suggest to try PVS-Studio: http://www.viva64.com/en/pvs-studio/

By: Jeff Darcy

Jeff Darcy — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:36:35 +0000

FYI, the way Coverity displays defects when using their own web UI is more like the clang-analyzer example you show than like the Coverity HTML. It also shows the specific paths that must be taken to reach the defect, but has even more capability to expand/collapse code sections, jump to definitions/uses, etc It’s actually a pretty good code browser. Unfortunately, since it’s a commercial product, they consider that interface to be part of their “secret sauce” and their licenses explicitly forbid sharing it with others. I think it would be fair to say that the clang HTML is nicer because that’s all they have while the Coverity HTML is relegated to a secondary role for when sharing the full web UI is not allowed.

Disclaimer: two-time Coverity licensee, no other association with them.