Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?

[Fred Kiefer]

> Am 29.01.2018 um 11:32 schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden>:
> 
>> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> re is a problem with these numbers. Coverity did only analyse about one 
>> third of the Objective-C files in GNUstep base and most likely only the 
>> smaller files. Coverity at the moment has issues with Objective-C protocols 
>> and only works with files where there are no references to any. That means 
>> we don’t know how many of the 1 million lines where actually checked for 
>> defects. The number 0.01 is basically meaningless :-)
> 
> :-(
> 
> Where do I look to find out about this?
> I don't think gnustep-base actually *uses* protocols much, so perhaps we can 
> figure out ways to work around this limitation?

When running Coverity it reports these numbers (I would like to paste the 
messages here, but copy/paste is not working in my virtual machine :-(
It says that 54 Objective-C (27%) files where „emitted“ and 93 (36%) are ready 
for analysis.

As for the protocols, this is just how I translate this message from Coverity:

cov-internal-emit-clang-main.cpp:5: assertion failure: 
xlate-ast-types.cpp:1807: assertion failed: ObjCTypeParamType translation not 
implemented.

If you look at the clang code you see that  ObjCTypeParamType was introduced to 
support protocols. I asked David for some explanations here up to now with any 
reply.