Re: verification and linting of lua implementations

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > * Thomas Buergel:
> >
> >> Perhaps it might be worth to register Lua for Coverity Scan[1]?
> >
> > So that Coverity claims in a press release that Lua contains 88
> > high-risk defects?  I'm not sure if this is such a great idea.
> 
> So we could patch 'em? I, for one, am sure it is.

The main problem is that, for most of these tools, patching real bugs is
not enough. For a program to be "clean", it must include a plethora of
annotations peculiar to each particular tool. (Maybe Coverity Scan
does not require such annotations; that would be great.)

-- Roberto