GCC Might Finally Have A Static Analysis Framework Thanks To Red Hat

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GCC Might Finally Have A Static Analysis Framework Thanks To Red Hat

Clang's static analyzer has become quite popular with developers for C/C++ static analysis of code while now the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) might finally see a mainline option thanks to Red Hat...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GCC-Static-Analysis-RH-Patches

[milkylainen]

A builtin static code analyzer is a welcome addition but using it really depends on how good it is.
Tools I have used previously range from mindless rant about just everything with 2 million options to tune.
And tools that has very few false positives and a sane default setting to start with.
This should be an interesting thing to follow.

[timofonic]

What about supporting other programming languages? Any intentions?

[CommunityMember]

Having used, at various times, clang, cppcheck, and coverty, for static analysis, I can say each has various strengths and weaknesses in the case of false positives and false negatives, but just like having more eyes on the code is claimed to make open source software better, having more ways to do static analysis certainly has the potential benefit for better code.

[pyler]

Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?

[AsuMagic]

Why RedHat must reinvent the wheel and not just contribute to open source static analyzers like clang’s one?

WhY DiD LlVm/ApPlE DeVelOPpeRs ReInVenT tHe WhEel ANd NoT JuSt CoNtRiBuTE tO OpEn SouRCe CoMpIleRs LIkE gcC?

[pyler]

License, we know. But I see no reasons why LLVM’s license is bad for RedHat.

[xnor]

License, we know. But I see no reasons why LLVM’s license is bad for RedHat.

Ahm, then I assume you have never read these licences?

How could it possibly hurt a company if another company can just take their work and incorporate it into their own proprietary product without giving anything back?
Yeah, it's a mystery.

[pyler]

Even GCC’s license does not require me to upstream and merge my changes. I just have to share my modified sources somewhere at public place, I think.

By your theory, LLVM is developed by small group of fans and basically dead, since as you said those bug companies do not contribute back. Well, you should check mail addresses of committers and you will be surprised.

People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.

[timofonic]

Even GCC’s license does not require me to upstream and merge my changes. I just have to share my modified sources somewhere at public place, I think.

By your theory, LLVM is developed by small group of fans and basically dead, since as you said those bug companies do not contribute back. Well, you should check mail addresses of committers and you will be surprised.

People are bored of gnu/gpl just because these stupid license games.

People are just brainwashed by corporations to become corporate whores, that's all.

GNU/GPL hate is just a conspiracy against freedom, to make many other ingenious developers and users eat it and accept it as true.

Do you want your soul be sold by some more code conditions? It's OK! Just don't be worried.

Please use your mind...