I was convinced by a co-worker to try. Never used static analyzers before, but it looks really too overrated. Checked all our C++ projects (~16 projects, ~2M LOC totally), found a few dozens of errors per project, all of them are false positives. Makes a lot of incomprehensible garbage on projects with heavy template use (read "boost"), very picky about mixing signed/unsigned integers having any clue about the context. Spent half a day grinding through the reports, yet, ultimately, without any positive results.
Went a step forward and out of curiosity introduced a few really mischievous bugs, such buffer overruns - CppCat found none of them, although even Visual Studio's compiler complained about 'em!
I guess I'll just stay true to unit testing as I always try to push down to my juniors.
I have to say that this is the best static analyzer I ever saw. Can't compare with Coverity though (but can compare with cppcheck, Microsoft SA and Intel SA - have to say that Intel SA disappointed me a lot, but that was some time ago). CppCat has surprisingly low amount of false positives and even those hint at not so well designed code (=unreadable). 5 of 5 for sure, fast, hq results. You won't find a commercial SA of such quality for such a good price. I can highly recommend this one (and no, I'm not affiliated with the authors in any way :)
Aggressively marketed, seriously stripped down version of not-so-great PVS Studio. It shares the worst from both worlds: it still bears ugly and unusable UI from PVS Studio, unmanagebly huge amounts of false positives, spitting thousands of fake "errors" even for simplest projects, very-awkward-to-use system of filtering that just doesn't work, etc, etc. Almost all useful checks (such as 64-bit porting checks) were stripped - the rest's comparable to free tools (cppcheck). No standalone version or a way to run-with-CI - basically, this tool is only good for one-man entry-level student projects to find stupid obvious errors.
Worst of all, authors still charge a lot for this crap and employ a very strict hardware binding system - so if you, like me, want to use it for a small team of 10 programmers who has one desktop at office and one laptop - it easily matches a price of Coverity installation, which wins big time by features, integration and quality of support.
So, bottom line: thrash this, unless you're a lazy C++-learning student and have extra 250$ to waste. Use prefast/cppcheck if your budget is <20K$, or Coverity otherwise.
Aggressively marketed. You know, it’s unexpected. Marketing is done solely by Andrey Karpov. He does it during short breaks between the programming work, writing articles and user support activity. Andrey said that you had praised his work.
What is written about students’ mistakes is a silly thing. Everyone makes mistakes, and this is why large, serious companies employ static analyzers. See the following article where this matter is discussed in detail: "Myths about static analysis. The second myth - expert developers do not make silly mistakes" - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0116/
And here’s a bug database of all the bugs found by PVS-Studio in widely known projects: http://www.viva64.com/en/examples/ CppCat can find them too.
This is a priceless tool, specially if you're working on an unfamiliar and large codebase. Not only it helps you pinpoint some existing issues, but also helps you find and fix problems that weren't discovered yet. Thumbs up!
Simple, fast, and excellent to find occasional errors. If you have high reliability requirements for the code, similar tool has to be a mandatory part of your development process. Although, of course, PVS Studio have more features.
After used for the first time, the tool will remain fully functional for 7 days. After that it will stop working completely. Sure, 7 days is enough time to check the whole project and maybe even fix some bugs. But you don’t enable compiler warnings once a year, do you? So, we hope that you will use our tool regularly.