<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Goanna 1.2 released</title>
	<atom:link href="http://redlizards.com/blog/development/goanna-12-released/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://redlizards.com/blog/development/goanna-12-released/</link>
	<description>The Blog of the Goanna Team</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ansgar</title>
		<link>http://redlizards.com/blog/development/goanna-12-released/comment-page-1/#comment-8410</link>
		<dc:creator>Ansgar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://redlizards.com/blog/?p=420#comment-8410</guid>
		<description>Most of the checks cover common ground such as uninitialised variables, null pointers, and common programming weaknesses. However, that doesn't mean that will give the same warning for the same piece of code, usually because they all use different techniques. There has been &lt;a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&#38;_udi=B75H1-4T0WSXB-2&#38;_user=10&#38;_coverDate=07%2F21%2F2008&#38;_rdoc=1&#38;_fmt=high&#38;_orig=search&#38;_sort=d&#38;_docanchor=&#38;view=c&#38;_searchStrId=1405361723&#38;_rerunOrigin=google&#38;_acct=C000050221&#38;_version=1&#38;_urlVersion=0&#38;_userid=10&#38;md5=1e1a4b044851a61f38f0b4da22fae682" rel="nofollow"&gt;published research&lt;/a&gt; that found that only a small fraction of all warnings of  any given tool gives are shared with all other tools. And that at least half of them are unique to that particular tool. So, it might be better to compare approaches. Our approach is to use model checking, which is essentially a graph search algorithm to explore all paths. That said, many tools try to specialise by providing particular classes of checks. A few of the classes we currently support are array bounds checks, c++ copy control and usage, and memory and pointer usage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most of the checks cover common ground such as uninitialised variables, null pointers, and common programming weaknesses. However, that doesn&#8217;t mean that will give the same warning for the same piece of code, usually because they all use different techniques. There has been <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B75H1-4T0WSXB-2&amp;_user=10&amp;_coverDate=07%2F21%2F2008&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_searchStrId=1405361723&amp;_rerunOrigin=google&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=1e1a4b044851a61f38f0b4da22fae682" rel="nofollow">published research</a> that found that only a small fraction of all warnings of  any given tool gives are shared with all other tools. And that at least half of them are unique to that particular tool. So, it might be better to compare approaches. Our approach is to use model checking, which is essentially a graph search algorithm to explore all paths. That said, many tools try to specialise by providing particular classes of checks. A few of the classes we currently support are array bounds checks, c++ copy control and usage, and memory and pointer usage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Basil Philipsz</title>
		<link>http://redlizards.com/blog/development/goanna-12-released/comment-page-1/#comment-6764</link>
		<dc:creator>Basil Philipsz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://redlizards.com/blog/?p=420#comment-6764</guid>
		<description>Can I ask a difficult question-
How far away is the checks provided by your version 1.2 and the forthcoming 100 new ones compare with the checks that the market leading packages like Fortify offer
Basil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can I ask a difficult question-<br />
How far away is the checks provided by your version 1.2 and the forthcoming 100 new ones compare with the checks that the market leading packages like Fortify offer<br />
Basil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

