Can you tell VS by now to ignore warnings in 3rd-party libs? Everything that's in Qt's headers is pretty much out of my control but those were by far the most common warnings (or at least I didn't see many real warnings amidst them). At least that's how it's in VS 2010 and it kept me from turning code analysis on more often.
VC++ analysis is useful aside from the fact that it mistakenly thinks every pointer usage is a potential null pointer, but I've gotten better results with clang static analysis.
Comments
Visual Studio now ships with a reasonably good static analyzer built in. We're using it more than our aging copy of PC-Lint.
(Carmack's review: http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/24/static-code-analysi...)
Can you tell VS by now to ignore warnings in 3rd-party libs? Everything that's in Qt's headers is pretty much out of my control but those were by far the most common warnings (or at least I didn't see many real warnings amidst them). At least that's how it's in VS 2010 and it kept me from turning code analysis on more often.
VC++ analysis is useful aside from the fact that it mistakenly thinks every pointer usage is a potential null pointer, but I've gotten better results with clang static analysis.
Every pointer is potentially null, until proven otherwise (which in the general case means solving the halting problem).