<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Generated on Fri, 25 May 2012 14:39:27 -0700 -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <title>Intel Software Network Comments Feed</title>
    <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>By Vivek Parmar</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Well that has to be happen as chromium belongs to Google and Google trying to dominate web as much as they can, so they left no loophole in chromium waiting to get my hands on it.  ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60762</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:59:30 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60762</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By a</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ Cppcheck catches some of these, even without proper path analysis. Not all, but many. eg. mismatched new/delete[], always true statements, out of range datatypes. 

the latest gcc-s catch some new ones as well, like the empty() (warn_unused_result).

Mind you, were I running a project like chromium, I would already have forked out for all of the half-decent static analysers. Its concerning they have not.

 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60770</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:08:06 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60770</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By scaraffe</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ #define count_of(arg) (sizeof(arg) / sizeof(arg[0]))  

How is this more efficient than just sizeof(arg) ? ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60786</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:06:34 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60786</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Alexei</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ scarafe, sizeof(arg) returns the size of array in bytes. If array elements are more than one byte long, which is most of the time, you are not getting what you want. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60792</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:24:26 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60792</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Andrey Karpov</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ #define count_of(arg) (sizeof(arg) / sizeof(arg[0])) 
How is this more efficient than just sizeof(arg) ?

int A[10];
sizeof(A) / sizeof(A[0]) = 10 - count of elements.
sizeof(A) = 40 (Win32) - size of array A. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60796</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:20:02 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60796</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By fishbot</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ The arraysize() trick is a cool idea, but it doesn't appear to work for anonymous structs. Am I missing something?

struct { int a, b; } bar[] = {{ 1,2 }, { 3,4 }};
size_t foo = arraysize( bar ); 

foo.cpp:12: error: no matching function for call to ‘ArraySizeHelper(<anonymous struct> [2])’

The usual count_of() pattern does work in these cases.
 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60797</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:38:57 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60797</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By lee</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ The fact that those libraries are that valuable to be reused, goes to show that Google knows what it's doing and takes forward thinking programming seriously. ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60799</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:31:33 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-60799</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By ilnarb</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ >> The arraysize() trick is a cool idea, but it doesn't appear to work for anonymous structs. Am I missing something?
template instantiating requires type with external linkage, that's why anonymous or function local structs wont work
 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-61825</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:09:09 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-61825</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>By Andrey Karpov</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ PVS-Studio vs Chromium - Continuation
http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0113/ ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-65412</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:02:58 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/pvs-studio-vs-chromium/#comment-65412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel></rss>
