Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Rational Purify vs. Compuware Boundschecker vs ?

Rational Purify vs. Compuware Boundschecker vs ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
announcementcsharphtmlvisual-studiocom
9 Posts 6 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P Offline
    P Offline
    peterchen
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Does anyone have experience with the two? I've been using Boundschecker 6 for a long time, it has helped me often, even though it seems to take a university degree to separate the false positives from the real data. However, recently Boundschecker is kind of spamming me, and it seems that I can leave the 20th century this year (aka upgrade to VC8), so I'm looking for an update I have tested: GlowCode: interesiting, comparedly cheap, but not really helpful Rational Purify: clean, fairly simple (except getting their eval licence to run :mad: ), and mostly helpful, would fit my needs DevPartner BoundsChecker Suite: twice the price of Purify offering features I'd like to have but don't really need. For my project out of the box is still creates tons of spam which I would consider wrong at first look. I'm tending towards rational, although I have the feeling to skip the more powerful product for some surface problems (even though these 'surface problems' did cost me lots of money in the last release) Any of your experiences?


    Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
    Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 8:16 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

    R B S J 4 Replies Last reply
    0
    • P peterchen

      Does anyone have experience with the two? I've been using Boundschecker 6 for a long time, it has helped me often, even though it seems to take a university degree to separate the false positives from the real data. However, recently Boundschecker is kind of spamming me, and it seems that I can leave the 20th century this year (aka upgrade to VC8), so I'm looking for an update I have tested: GlowCode: interesiting, comparedly cheap, but not really helpful Rational Purify: clean, fairly simple (except getting their eval licence to run :mad: ), and mostly helpful, would fit my needs DevPartner BoundsChecker Suite: twice the price of Purify offering features I'd like to have but don't really need. For my project out of the box is still creates tons of spam which I would consider wrong at first look. I'm tending towards rational, although I have the feeling to skip the more powerful product for some surface problems (even though these 'surface problems' did cost me lots of money in the last release) Any of your experiences?


      Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
      Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 8:16 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Ray Kinsella
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      TBH I use VC6.0 and have access to both Boundschecker and Rational Purify. I hadn't a notion how much either of them cost, but if what you say is true, and Purify is half the price of Bounderschecker, I know I would be buying Purify. I find the on the fly instrumentation of Purify very handy, it means you don't have to consciously rebuild everything each time you want to find a leak. Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit is also very useful leak finder and is completely free. Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch -- modified at 8:46 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

      P 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • R Ray Kinsella

        TBH I use VC6.0 and have access to both Boundschecker and Rational Purify. I hadn't a notion how much either of them cost, but if what you say is true, and Purify is half the price of Bounderschecker, I know I would be buying Purify. I find the on the fly instrumentation of Purify very handy, it means you don't have to consciously rebuild everything each time you want to find a leak. Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit is also very useful leak finder and is completely free. Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch -- modified at 8:46 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

        P Offline
        P Offline
        peterchen
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        The BoundsChecker Suite also provides Code Coverage (which is a separate product with rational)

        Ray Kinsella wrote:

        Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit

        Interesting - I'll have a look! Does it do COM allocations, too?


        Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
        Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist

        R 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • P peterchen

          The BoundsChecker Suite also provides Code Coverage (which is a separate product with rational)

          Ray Kinsella wrote:

          Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit

          Interesting - I'll have a look! Does it do COM allocations, too?


          Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
          Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist

          R Offline
          R Offline
          Ray Kinsella
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          eh no your com leaks you still need to debug using _ATL_DEBUG_INTERFACE ... its very painful Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P peterchen

            The BoundsChecker Suite also provides Code Coverage (which is a separate product with rational)

            Ray Kinsella wrote:

            Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit

            Interesting - I'll have a look! Does it do COM allocations, too?


            Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
            Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist

            R Offline
            R Offline
            Ray Kinsella
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            Code Coverage is one of the easier things to do with the Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P peterchen

              Does anyone have experience with the two? I've been using Boundschecker 6 for a long time, it has helped me often, even though it seems to take a university degree to separate the false positives from the real data. However, recently Boundschecker is kind of spamming me, and it seems that I can leave the 20th century this year (aka upgrade to VC8), so I'm looking for an update I have tested: GlowCode: interesiting, comparedly cheap, but not really helpful Rational Purify: clean, fairly simple (except getting their eval licence to run :mad: ), and mostly helpful, would fit my needs DevPartner BoundsChecker Suite: twice the price of Purify offering features I'd like to have but don't really need. For my project out of the box is still creates tons of spam which I would consider wrong at first look. I'm tending towards rational, although I have the feeling to skip the more powerful product for some surface problems (even though these 'surface problems' did cost me lots of money in the last release) Any of your experiences?


              Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
              Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 8:16 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

              B Offline
              B Offline
              Barry Etter
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              I've used both tools plus Microsoft's umdh and Software Validator's MemoryValidator. My application is huge, consumes lots of memory and has tons of allocations. Using BoundsChecker to find memory leaks is impossible. BoundsChecker slows the application to a crawl and eventually consumes all available memory, and that's just during application initialization! Purify was able to work as was MemoryValidator. For results (finding memory leaks, in my case), MemoryValidator did the best job and it's cheap compared to BoundsChecker. It will depend on what you're using the tool for (errors, leaks, coverage), what language you're using (C++, .NET, etc), the size of your application and the cost you're willing to accept. Barry Etter

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • P peterchen

                Does anyone have experience with the two? I've been using Boundschecker 6 for a long time, it has helped me often, even though it seems to take a university degree to separate the false positives from the real data. However, recently Boundschecker is kind of spamming me, and it seems that I can leave the 20th century this year (aka upgrade to VC8), so I'm looking for an update I have tested: GlowCode: interesiting, comparedly cheap, but not really helpful Rational Purify: clean, fairly simple (except getting their eval licence to run :mad: ), and mostly helpful, would fit my needs DevPartner BoundsChecker Suite: twice the price of Purify offering features I'd like to have but don't really need. For my project out of the box is still creates tons of spam which I would consider wrong at first look. I'm tending towards rational, although I have the feeling to skip the more powerful product for some surface problems (even though these 'surface problems' did cost me lots of money in the last release) Any of your experiences?


                Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
                Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 8:16 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

                S Offline
                S Offline
                Shog9 0
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Try Memory Validator. There's a 30-day trial version, so you have plenty of time to play with it. Personally, i'd recommend it over BoundsChecker just for the speed.

                Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P peterchen

                  Does anyone have experience with the two? I've been using Boundschecker 6 for a long time, it has helped me often, even though it seems to take a university degree to separate the false positives from the real data. However, recently Boundschecker is kind of spamming me, and it seems that I can leave the 20th century this year (aka upgrade to VC8), so I'm looking for an update I have tested: GlowCode: interesiting, comparedly cheap, but not really helpful Rational Purify: clean, fairly simple (except getting their eval licence to run :mad: ), and mostly helpful, would fit my needs DevPartner BoundsChecker Suite: twice the price of Purify offering features I'd like to have but don't really need. For my project out of the box is still creates tons of spam which I would consider wrong at first look. I'm tending towards rational, although I have the feeling to skip the more powerful product for some surface problems (even though these 'surface problems' did cost me lots of money in the last release) Any of your experiences?


                  Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
                  Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -- modified at 8:16 Wednesday 26th April, 2006

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  Joe Woodbury
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  I haven't used Purify, but have used every version of BoundsChecker since the early 90s. I was very impressed by their latest offering. The code coverage and benchmarking tools for .NET were invaluable. For what it's worth, I've had collegues who've used Purify and without exception their comments always start with something akin to "It's nice but..." and usually end with "at least I'm not paying for it." That isn't to say BoundsChecker doesn't have it's qualifications, it does, but I've heard less rationalization (bad pun) concerning it than Purify. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Ray Kinsella

                    Code Coverage is one of the easier things to do with the Microsoft's Debugging Toolkit Regards Ray "Je Suis Mort De Rire" Blogging @ Keratoconus Watch

                    G Offline
                    G Offline
                    Gordon Brandly
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    I think I vaguely remember hearing about this Debugging Toolkit, but a Google search and a search of the message boards here for "debugging toolkit" turned up nothing for me. Do you happen to know where I can find it? If so, thanks.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    Reply
                    • Reply as topic
                    Log in to reply
                    • Oldest to Newest
                    • Newest to Oldest
                    • Most Votes


                    • Login

                    • Don't have an account? Register

                    • Login or register to search.
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    0
                    • Categories
                    • Recent
                    • Tags
                    • Popular
                    • World
                    • Users
                    • Groups