> Those tools can't reliably identify undefined behaviour.
I'm sorry, can you explain what leads you to believe your hypothetical scenario is an argument rejecting the use of static code analysis tools?
I mean, I'm stating the fact that there are many many tools out there that can pick up these problems. This is a known fact. You're saying that hypothetically perhaps they might not catch each and every single hypothetical case. So what?
They're a good idea, but not a substitute for knowing the rules. And they don't just miss theoretical cases, they miss problems in practice even when used rigourously.
> They're a good idea, but not a substitute for knowing the rules.
It's a good thing no one made that claim, then.
The whole point is that were seeing people in this thread making all sort of wild claims on how it's virtually impossible to catch these errors in C++ even though back in reality there are a myriad of static analysis and memory checker tools that do just that.
Your average developer also knows how to type in a space character but still it's a good idea to onboard linters and automatic code formatters.
It's not impossible to catch those errors in C and C++. In fact, every time you run a new tool against a large C or C++ codebase you will find new ones. What none of these tools do is catch all the issues, as demonstrated by the fact that people keep finding new ones.
