Bug finding tools can find defects in software source code using an automated static analysis. This automation may be able to reduce the time spent for other testing and review activities. For this we need to have a clear understanding of how the defects found by bug finding tools relate to the defects found by other techniques. This paper describes a case study using several projects mainly from an industrial environment that were used to analyse the interrelationships. The main finding is that the bug finding tools predominantly find different defects than testing but a subset of defects found by reviews. However, the types that can be detected are analysed more thoroughly. Therefore, a combination is most advisable if the high number of false positives of the tools can be tolerated.
@cite_4: There are important classes of programming errors that are hard to diagnose, both manually and automatically, because they involve a program's dynamic behavior. This article describes a compile-time analyzer that detects these dynamic errors in large, real-world programs. The analyzer traces execution paths through the source code, modeling memory and reporting inconsistencies. In addition to avoiding false paths through the program, this approach provides valuable contextual information to the programmer who needs to understand and repair the defects. Automatically-created models, abstracting the behavior of individual functions, allow inter-procedural defects to be detected efficiently. A product built on these techniques has been used effectively on several large commercial programs. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
report in @cite_4 on a static analyser for C and C++ code which is able to find several more dynamic programming errors. However, a comparison with tests was not done. Nevertheless, our observation that the defect-finding capabilities depend strongly on the coding styles of different programmers is supported in this paper.