"Comparative Analysis of Defect Detection and Coding Standard Compliance in R2021a" Proposed Paper Outline 1. Introduction
R2021a brought these two tools closer together, offering a unified desktop interface and significantly improved server-side processing. polyspace r2021a
: Improved analysis speed and result precision for C/C++ code using the AUTOSAR RTE API IDE Integration : Use Bug Finder checkers directly within your Integrated Development Environment (IDE) to catch bugs earlier in the coding phase. 2. Core Comparison: Bug Finder vs. Code Prover Polyspace Bug Finder Polyspace Code Prover Primary Goal The analysis now uses "smart stubs" for AUTOSAR
| Metric | Polyspace R2020b | Polyspace R2021a | Improvement | |--------|------------------|------------------|--------------| | Code Prover analysis time (500k LOC, automotive) | 11.2 hrs | 8.1 hrs | 28% | | Memory usage (peak) | 32 GB | 24 GB | 25% | | Bug Finder false positive rate (MISRA C) | 12% | 8% | 33% | | Incremental reverification (single function change) | 100% of project | 28% of project | 72% reduction | polyspace r2021a
: Run faster analyses and view more precise results for C/C++ code that uses the AUTOSAR RTE API . The analysis now uses "smart stubs" for AUTOSAR library functions to speed up the process without losing precision .
Let's walk through a realistic safety-critical workflow using Polyspace R2021a for an automotive electronic control unit (ECU) targeting .
R2021a added support for: