While communicating with people on forums, I noticed there are a few lasting misconceptions concerning the static analysis methodology. I decided to write a series of brief articles where I want to show you the real state of things.
The third myth is: "Dynamic analysis performed by tools like valgrind for C/C++ is much better than static code analysis".
While communicating with people on forums, I noticed there are a few lasting misconceptions concerning the static analysis methodology. I decided to write a series of brief articles where I want to show you the real state of things.
The fourth myth is: "A static analyzer must enable users to add user-made rules. Programmers want to add their own rules."
No, they don't. They actually want to solve some tasks of searching for particular language constructs. It is not the same thing as creating diagnostic rules.
While communicating with people on forums, I noticed there are a few lasting misconceptions concerning the static analysis methodology. I decided to write a series of brief articles where I want to show you the real state of things.
The fifth myth: "You can easily evaluate capabilities of a static analyzer on a small test code".
This is how this statement looks in discussions on forums (this is a collective image):
