Static code analyse of the libical library

[Allen Winter]

On Monday, June 06, 2016 10:06:44 AM Milan Crha wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 12:21 -0400, Allen Winter wrote:
> > I just ran Coverity on the glib branch.
> > You can see the results here -> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/li
> > bical-libical/view_defects
> 
> 	Hi,
> I ran the scan on the glib branch at commit
> 13b48609e38bdadfdb9c5657b32a4fea0c46eb91 with the patch from [1]
> applied and the result can be found here [2] (I'm sorry, I do not have
> a publicly accessible address for those results, thus I copied it
> elsewhere). You can see at the bottom of [2] what tools were run on it
> and in which versions. The summary of the detected issues and
> suggestions [3] is slightly longer than the single Coverity Scan, it
> counts down to defect #238. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier,
> there can be false positives.

nice report.  good to have all the issues in one report.
now we just need to fix them all :)


> 	Bye,
> 	Milan
> 
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/libical-devel/2016-June/000710.html
> [2] https://people.gnome.org/~mcrha/libical/glib-branch-20160606.html
> [3] Summary of the detected issues and suggestions:
>       1	ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON
>       2	CHAR_IO
>       4	CHECKED_RETURN
>      61	CLANG_WARNING
>       9	CPPCHECK_WARNING
>       6	DC.WEAK_CRYPTO
>       4	DEADCODE
>      13	FORWARD_NULL
>       1	IDENTIFIER_TYPO
>       1	MISSING_BREAK
>       1	NEGATIVE_RETURNS
>       4	NULL_RETURNS
>       3	OVERRUN
>      19	PASS_BY_VALUE
>      88	RESOURCE_LEAK
>       6	REVERSE_INULL
>       7	TAINTED_SCALAR
>       1	TOCTOU
>       4	UNINIT
>       3	USE_AFTER_FREE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libical-devel mailing list
> libical-devel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libical-devel