faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Auto bug detecting
by john on Tuesday 06/Jun/2006, @07:44
|
Simple debugging is inadequate and inefficient. Coverity tools perform what is known as "static analysis" - they actually "reason" on the code and look for ways that small sections of code can be accessed (for example, if using a debugger only, you may never hit the 'magic' combination of tests and system state to try a portion of an if-test or rarely-called subroutine. Static analysis doesn't have that problem, it can walk through almost any possible code scenario without actually running the code. It can be time-consuming and tricky, doing all that backtracking and multi-path analysis.)
It's probably still best to perform static and dynamic analysis as well as conventional debugging - and all of it behind a strong lead-in based on quality development practices like Rational Unified Process, strong Systems Engineering (in the "Blanchard" style, not some ad-hoc method), code reviews, formalized build processes, etc.
If you're thinking "I can do it all with a debugger", you haven't been paying attention to the software engineering profession and developments over the past many years. There are better ways to get better code, and a debugger alone just doesn't qualify as "quality" anymore. Coverity (and no, I'm not an employee, own stock in them, benefit in any way from promoting them, etc) is a very good supporting member of the cast of development characters. |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
