Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30446

Re: Static analysis tool?

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/16/2021 12:24 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> Perhaps someone here can help...
> 
> I'm doing a presentation on techniques for embedded, especially removing and 
> keeping out bugs ;-) Using an example project from last year. A reviewer of my 
> first draft suggested many of the bugs surfaced in the project would have been 
> caught by static analysis - but I haven't had such great luck in the past.

Presumably, C.

> Tried CPPcheck, and while it found some less-than-optimal stuff it only found 
> one of the real bugs discussed.
> 
> Tried to get an evaluation copy of Coverity, but got a wildly annoying and 
> clueless sales person who promises a member of the right team will contact me 
> shortly (Real Soon Now).
> 
> Bugs I had to fix and amenable to static analysis included:
> - uninitialized variable (only one found by CPPcheck)
> - use of magic 0xff index value as subscript off end of array
> - C macro with unguarded arguments getting wrong answer
> - use of int8 to index 1kb buffer (so only 256 bytes got used)
> 
> Anybody able to recommend a tool they've used successfully?

Coverity will require deep pockets/"high visibility" (they're out
to make money).

Eclipse includes some tools.  Lint/PCLint are old standbys.
There are a few IDEs that include support for MISRA compliance
checking.  PVS-Studio under Windows.

Note that what some folks would consider a bug might really
just be a coding style preference (e.g., multiple returns
from a function)

My approach has mimicked that implicit in code reviews:  let lots
of eyes (in this case, tools) look at the code and then interpret
their reports.  The more you veer from plain vanilla C, the more
you;ll have to hand-hold the tool.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-16 15:24 -0400
  Re: Static analysis tool? Helmut Giese <hgiese@ratiosoft.com> - 2021-04-16 21:44 +0200
  Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 12:56 -0700
    Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-16 16:26 -0400
      Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 13:47 -0700
        Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 13:54 -0700
    Re: Static analysis tool? Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2021-04-16 22:54 +0200
      Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-04-16 14:20 -0700
  Re: Static analysis tool? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2021-04-17 01:04 -0700
  Re: Static analysis tool? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2021-04-17 10:09 +0200
  Re: Static analysis tool? Michael Kellett <mk@mkesc.co.uk> - 2021-04-17 10:45 +0100
  Re: Static analysis tool? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-17 12:51 +0200
  Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-04-17 10:34 -0400
    Re: Static analysis tool? Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2021-05-02 11:41 -0400
      Re: Static analysis tool? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-05-02 08:49 -0700

csiph-web