Coverity Scan VS Cppcheck

Coverity Scan Reviews

Cppcheck Reviews

Coverity Scan mentions (4)

• I created this point of sale system for restaurants and hospitality. The All-In-One has a 15.6" touchscreen running a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4L and is made by Chipsee in Bejing, China. I'm helping a friend install it in a restaurant on the St. Lawrence River where he is the Executive Chef.

  You can use Coverity for free on open source code. I use it on an app I open sourced for packet processing. https://scan.coverity.com/. Source: over 2 years ago

• Free for dev - list of software (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, etc.)

  Scan.coverity.com — Static code analysis for Java, C/C++, C# and JavaScript, free for Open Source. - Source: dev.to / over 2 years ago

• CDN dollar just hit 6 year high.

  I personally remember Coverity Scan being completely offline for like 6 months while they tried to deal with infrastructure abuse from people mining bitcoin on their computing clusters. Source: almost 3 years ago

• GCC 10.3 has been released

  > Does anyone know any good static analysers other than gcc's or clang's? Visual C++ as well, because since the XP SP2 issues, Microsoft has come up with SAL, which you can also use on your own code, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/code-quality/using-sal-annotations-to-reduce-c-cpp-code-defects?view=msvc-160 Then specialized tooling just for this purpose, just two examples, https://scan.coverity.com/... - Source: Hacker News / about 3 years ago

Cppcheck mentions (10)

• Configuring Cppcheck, Cpplint, and JSON Lint

  I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end. - Source: dev.to / about 2 months ago

• Enforcing Memory Safety?

  Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code. Source: 11 months ago

• Static Code analysis

  For my own projects, I used cppcheck. You can check out that tool to get a feel. Depending on what industry your in, you might need to follow a standard like Misra. Source: about 1 year ago

• How do you not shoot yourself in the foot ?

  Https://cppcheck.sourceforge.io/ (there are many other static analysis tools, I just haven't used them or didn't care for them). Source: about 1 year ago

• Linting tool for prohibiting the use of specific std types

  Sounds like something that could simply be communicated with the team that writes the tests. Unless you have dozens of such classes. In that case, you could just use e.g. Cppcheck and add a rule (regular expression) that searches for usages of the forbidden classes. Source: over 1 year ago