Subject: Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis
From: Jeremy Pack (rostovpack_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-04 12:21:11
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> None the less quite a number of very well known projects seem to have
> accepted it: perl, gcc, gdb, tcl etc etc.
> Personally I *would* rather like to see Boost put through a static analysis
> tool on a regular basis: so I'm wondering if we should bite the bullet and
> sign up for this?
I've researched Coverity in the past (and taken a class from one of the
founders), and was convinced enough of its usefulness that I had planned on
proposing that Boost sign up. I believe it would help improve the
correctness and security of the code, which would certainly increase usage
of Boost at my place of employ.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk