Re: Coverity Scan for GNUstep?

[Wolfgang Lux]

> Am 29.01.2018 um 18:15 schrieb Fred Kiefer <address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 29.01.2018 um 11:32 schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden>:
>> 
>>> On 29 Jan 2018, at 08:28, Fred Kiefer <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> re is a problem with these numbers. Coverity did only analyse about one 
>>> third of the Objective-C files in GNUstep base and most likely only the 
>>> smaller files. Coverity at the moment has issues with Objective-C protocols 
>>> and only works with files where there are no references to any. That means 
>>> we don’t know how many of the 1 million lines where actually checked for 
>>> defects. The number 0.01 is basically meaningless :-)
>> 
>> :-(
>> 
>> Where do I look to find out about this?
>> I don't think gnustep-base actually *uses* protocols much, so perhaps we can 
>> figure out ways to work around this limitation?
> 
> When running Coverity it reports these numbers (I would like to paste the 
> messages here, but copy/paste is not working in my virtual machine :-(
> It says that 54 Objective-C (27%) files where „emitted“ and 93 (36%) are 
> ready for analysis.
> 
> As for the protocols, this is just how I translate this message from Coverity:
> 
> cov-internal-emit-clang-main.cpp:5: assertion failure: 
> xlate-ast-types.cpp:1807: assertion failed: ObjCTypeParamType translation not 
> implemented.
> 
> If you look at the clang code you see that  ObjCTypeParamType was introduced 
> to support protocols.

I think that is a misunderstanding. ObjCTypeParamType is the syntactic category 
related to type parameters of generic types. For instance, given a declaration
  NSArray<ElemType> *array;
ElemType is the type parameter here and it signals that the array should 
contain only instances of ElemType.

Wolfgang