walkero
/
cppcheck
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

manual; tweaked introduction

This commit is contained in:
Daniel Marjamäki 2020-11-25 17:48:17 +01:00
parent e96948cdd9
commit a05a20093a
1 changed files with 20 additions and 12 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

32
man/manual.md
View File

@ -10,26 +10,34 @@ documentclass: report
Cppcheck is an analysis tool for C/C++ code. It provides unique code analysis to detect bugs and focuses on detecting Cppcheck is an analysis tool for C/C++ code. It provides unique code analysis to detect bugs and focuses on detecting
undefined behaviour and dangerous coding constructs. The goal is to detect only real errors in the code, and generate undefined behaviour and dangerous coding constructs. The goal is to detect only real errors in the code, and generate
as few false positives as possible. Cppcheck is designed to analyze your C/C++ code even if it has non-standard syntax, as few false positives (wrongly reported warnings) as possible. Cppcheck is designed to analyze your C/C++ code even
as is common in for example embedded projects. if it has non-standard syntax, as is common in for example embedded projects.
Supported code and platforms: Supported code and platforms:
- Cppcheck checks non-standard code that contains various compiler extensions, inline assembly code, etc. - Cppcheck checks non-standard code that contains various compiler extensions, inline assembly code, etc.
- Cppcheck should be compilable by any compiler that supports the latest C++ standard. - Cppcheck should be compilable by any compiler that supports C++11 or later.
- Cppcheck should work on any platform that has sufficient CPU and memory. - Cppcheck is cross platform and is used in various posix/windows/etc environments.
Cppcheck is rarely wrong about reported errors, but there are many bugs that it doesn't detect (yet). Most logarithmic The checks in Cppcheck are not perfect. There are bugs that should be found, that Cppcheck fails to detect.
bugs will not be found by static analysis. To avoid logarithmic bugs it is more effective to test your software and
design it carefully than by running Cppcheck.
Cppcheck is not very deep. A dynamic analysis tool is much more effective in finding deep bugs than Cppcheck. ## About static analysis
Then there are also bugs that Cppcheck should detect that it does not detect yet. No sophisticated product is perfect. The kinds of bugs that you can find with static analysis are:
However there is work ongoing on a "bug hunting" mode that makes Cppcheck soundy. * undefined behavior
* using dangerous code patterns
* coding style
Also, next to careful design, you will find more bugs in your software by testing your software rigorously than by There are many bugs that you can not find with static analysis. Static analysis tools do not have human knowledge about
using Cppcheck. You will find more bugs in your software by instrumenting your software than by using Cppcheck. what your program is intended to do. If the output from your program is valid but unexpected then in most cases this is
not detected by static analysis tools. For instance, if your small program writes "Helo" on the screen instead of "Hello"
it is unlikely that any tool will complain about that.
Static analysis should be used as a complement in your quality assurance. It does not replace any of;
* careful design
* testing
* dynamic analysis
* fuzzing
# Getting started # Getting started