Tweet
> Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?
I'm a tool developer (Cppcheck).
It's a good thing that RedHat creates a new analyzer in GCC and I assume it will be a very good payoff for their effort.
You seem to wrongly assume that all tools are written in the same way and that a tool can completely overlap another.
It is common wizdom that you should use several analyzers. More analyzers will mean more bugs are detected. There can be some overlap but each tool always have some unique advantages. Technically, Cppcheck and Clang have very different static analysis, it's not just the parsing that is different. I don't know what approach RedHat chose but it's probably different to both Cppcheck and Clang.
I'm a tool developer (Cppcheck).
It's a good thing that RedHat creates a new analyzer in GCC and I assume it will be a very good payoff for their effort.
You seem to wrongly assume that all tools are written in the same way and that a tool can completely overlap another.
It is common wizdom that you should use several analyzers. More analyzers will mean more bugs are detected. There can be some overlap but each tool always have some unique advantages. Technically, Cppcheck and Clang have very different static analysis, it's not just the parsing that is different. I don't know what approach RedHat chose but it's probably different to both Cppcheck and Clang.
Comment