Static code analyse of the libical library

[Milan Crha]

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.
	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