Code Analysis Tools

[Single Step Debugger]

Using some outdated analog device in the era of 64 bit shiny software? No way!

There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

[Tim Groven]

I am loving ReSharper with integrated StyleCop.

[Lost User]

Caydence wrote:

StyleCop

*Shudder* I have tried it and wound up with deactivating most rules because it kept whining about too many things I did intentionally. For example it had severe problems with my class factories and demanded that I properly dispose of the objects I had just fabricated before they go out of scope. The effort to analyze nonexistant problems was greater than the few minor things it helped me to find.

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

[Lost User]

Would you like to hear something like that from your son one day? :)

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

[peterchen]

I'm known for eloquent mockery, and if *I* find it entertaining, it's free.

---

If you are asking for static code analysis for C++: PVS-Studio, hands down, feature-wise. I've recently compared the most promising offers on our code base, and it beats them on quality diagnostics, signal-to-noise and use comfort. It's elephanting expensive and the licence is short of tort. I understand it's a small amrket, but still.

FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

We're using Coverity. It seems ok.

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun

[Lost User]

For which language? we were using coverty but didn't bother to renew the very expensive licence. I want to look at attempting some more domain specific code analysis by integrating something into llvm but i hsvent explored that idea much.

[Bassam Abdul Baki]

PCLint and Understand.

Web - BM - RSS - Math - LinkedIn

[Mike Diack]

For C/C++, I'd rate Gimpel Software's PC-Lint very highly and Riverblade's Visual Lint is an excellent way of integrating it into Visual Studio. Both are significantly cheaper than most similar tools: http://www.gimpel.com/html/index.htm[^] and http://www.riverblade.co.uk/products/visual_lint/index.html[^] I've been using them for years, personally and professionally and rate them very highly. Mike

[AndyStephens]

Resharper + Stylecop gets my vote too, if you are in the .Net world.

[tgrt]

I like nDepend. I was given a license to do a review. I wanted to dislike it, because I have a general distrust of tools like that. However, I came out liking it quite a bit; especially, the dependency matrix view.

[tom1443]

Coverity - expensive and complicated. PCLint/FlexeLint - simpler and effective.

[HoyaSaxa93]

DevExpress tools are quite good. There are similar issues as ReSharper i.e. Turning off rules for things that are intentional but I am quite happy with it. It was also very easy to learn with lots of videos on their site and the "intelligent" Guide add-in for Visual Studio.

[ettl martin]

We are using cppcheck, its open source and easy to extend. Check it out :)

[KP Lee]

CDP1802 wrote:

like to hear something like that from your son

about outdated 64 bit technology?

[KP Lee]

Haven't tried StyleCop. If it would complain about objects going out of scope in C#, I'd certainly agree with your assessment.