Well, it doesn't really show bugs and is not so embarrassing either… It just points out that some of us code strangely. It detected where the code could be cleaned and it gathers it on a single web page. This is just cool.
Some pieces of codes are WTF… Missing semicolon, lost comma, those may be bugs. Many other things are just very strange: sections ‘One-time loop’, ‘Very odd method’, ‘Comparing this with zero’, actually it's quite funny. There are not as many sections as I could expect actually. Maybe they didn't show all…
Did someone already plan to work on it? Or could I deal with it? Well, I couldn't manage to compile Inkscape trunk yet; I got some errors with GCC 6.1.1 (I could compile 0.92pre1)… But I don't need to compile to correct such things — :). I suppose these should be corrected in the 0.92 branch.
The page says ‘For this analysis, we used the latest version of Inkscape, 0.92, whose source codes can be downloaded from the GitHub repository’. We could tell them that, as our own analysis of their work — :) —, since the source code is not on GitHub yet, and the code for 0.92 probably won't be.
Sylvain
Le 15/08/2016 à 23:18, Alex Valavanis a écrit :
Thanks! Very useful article... The more static analysis tools we can throw at our code, the better!
AV
On 15 Aug 2016 9:21 p.m., "Tavmjong Bah" <tavmjong@...8... mailto:tavmjong@...8...> wrote:
Hi, Alexandre Prokoudine has pointed out to me an interesting (embarrassing?) article about our code base. Have a look at: http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0419/ <http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0419/> Tav