Article points out several coding errors in MediaPortal 2

I’m not a big fan of using Windows for anything unless you absolutely need to, but for those who do, one of the more widely used Windows-based PVR backend and frontend software packages is MediaPortal 2. I ran the original MediaPortal briefly, early on in my attempts to set up a satellite backend, and had a lot of issues with it, but I will say they had the best developer and community support I have seen anywhere (no crabby developers that felt the need to insult or demean a hapless user from time to time, as I too often see in Linux-based software forums). Were it not for the need to use Windows I might have stayed with it, but I just really hated having to use Windows for a server, and it didn’t play that well with my satellite tuner cards, so I wound up switching to TVHeadend running under Linux.

Anyway, now I realize one reason I might have had some issues with it. According to this article, their code is rather buggy:

Brief analysis of Media Portal 2 bugs

Now, it appears that the code was analyzed using a commercial product called PVS-Studio which, as best I can figure out from that page, is program used to analyze programs written in the C language and some of its variants. So in essence, it would appear that the purpose of the article is primarily to demonstrate how their software can find bugs in other people’s software. If you ran that program against any other software written in C, it would probably yield a similar list of what it considers to be problems in the code. In other words, viewed one way this article is in part a thinly-veiled advertisement for their product. Still, one would hope that the MediaPortal 2 developers would at least fix the problems noted in that article.

So, if any of you are using MediaPortal 2, you might want to bring this article to the attention of the developers, if they haven’t already seen it. As for the PVS-Studio software, I will just pass along this text from the article:

So, let’s take a look at the most interesting bugs we found; the project authors can do a more detailed review of the bugs by doing the project check themselves, or by making a request for a temporary license. Also, dear readers, if you are non-commercial or individual developers, I suggest using the free version of our static analyzer. Its functional abilities are absolutely identical to the paid version and so, it is the perfect fit for students, individual developers, and teams of enthusiasts.

I can think of at least once piece of software I’d like to see analyzed by something like this, but I don’t know if any part of it is written in C. Not mentioning any names, but it rhymes with toady, or grody.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s