I'm quite surprised to hear this. What do you get from GCC's analyser that Clang's static analyser doesn't already report?
I tried to use GCC's analyser several times, but I couldn't find any good front ends to it that make the output readable. Clang has multiple (reasonably good HTML output, CodeChecker, Xcode integration, etc.). How do you read the output?
Furthermore, I find that GCC produces many more false positives than Clang.
While I wish GCC would implement integrations and/or a language server, I usually do C programming in the terminal (with entr to trigger automatic rebuild on save).
I do find some false positives, but I haven't had many of them to be a deal breaker for me. Aside from what I mentioned about the errors being descriptive, I do like the defaults and that it's part of the compilation process.
for example, possible malloc null warning is on by default (which i don't think is on clang).
I tried to use GCC's analyser several times, but I couldn't find any good front ends to it that make the output readable. Clang has multiple (reasonably good HTML output, CodeChecker, Xcode integration, etc.). How do you read the output?
Furthermore, I find that GCC produces many more false positives than Clang.