home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ix.netcom.com!netnews
- From: blean@ix.netcom.com (Bob Blean)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Are Purify, PureCoverage, and Quantify a MUST?
- Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 23:04:13 GMT
- Organization: Netcom
- Message-ID: <313a1b59.14973522@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
- References: <4guvq9$354@nrtphba6.bnr.ca>
- Reply-To: blean@ix.netcom.com
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pax-ca6-07.ix.netcom.com
- X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Mar 03 3:05:55 PM PST 1996
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
-
- markham@bnr.ca (Andrew Markham) wrote:
-
- >In the next month or so, the coding for our project will
- >begin. We are borrowing some code from other groups in
- >our company and will be implementing a bunch of our own
- >as well.
- >
- >My question is a simple one. For those who have experience
- >using the above Pure products, would you be caught dead
- >without these or do you just consider them "nice to have".
-
- As part of our latest releas, I ran Purify on a library of ours that
- has been shipping for some time (plus fixes and enhancements for this
- release, of course). I was surprised by the number of problems purify
- turned up, even in code that was not changed for this release.
-
- It did not take an exhorbitant amount of time -- the stack traces
- given by Purify were accurate and usually obvious. I am convinced
- that our library is a lot better for having done so. On the other
- hand, many of the bugs it detected have been in the field for some
- time with no bug reports filed.
-
- Draw your own conclusions. I plan to make purifying our library a
- normal part of development and of testing for each release cycle from
- here on out, though.
- --Bob
-