Re: [boost] Coverity Static Code Analysis

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?
>
> John.
>

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.

Jeremy Pack