| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Compared to commercial?Compared to commercial?Posted Mar 8, 2006 5:32 UTC (Wed) by peterh (subscriber, #4225)In reply to: Compared to commercial? by daniels Parent article: Coverity releases first defect survey results
Yes, but you're missing the point. Automated checkers are supposed to be thorough --- they tend to find the sorts of bugs that you wouldn't expect to find yourself.
There's been a reasonable amount of research recently on using reasonably classical compiler-type program analyses, such as abstract interpretation and dataflow analyses to detect bugs (Metal/Coverity checker and Saturn out of Stanford, and I think Cousot and others were doing work on verification of aerospace systems in France, and there are no doubt more that I can't think of right now). The real innovation of Metal is that it has a "find bugs at all cost" mentality, irrespective of the theoretical soundness of what it does. The result is probably quite good as a tool for finding certain classes of bugs. But I doubt it's sensible to make conclusions about the total bug count of a program based on what the checker detects.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||