From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Feb 13 09:43:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA26028
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lightside.com (hamby1.lightside.net [207.67.176.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA26023
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lightside.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA11744; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:44:27 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:44:27 -0800
From: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby)
Message-Id: <199702131744.JAA11744@lightside.com>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Speaking of Insure++
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-MD5: r7y6AQKjQ2s03m9AJ5eEYQ==
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

While investigating development tools for a Windows programming project at 
work, I came across this comparison of BoundsChecker Pro (which uses the 
same technology as Insure++), HeapAgent, and Purify NT.  It was written by 
the authors of HeapAgent, so it is a little biased, but it does present a 
fair comparison of what each product is good for (their conclusion was that 
Purify or BoundsChecker are the best tools for final testing, but they slow 
down the program far too much to be used during the development phase, a 
conclusion I tend to agree with from my experience).

Anyway, since there was mention of asking ParaSoft to port Insure++ to 
FreeBSD, this should be interesting reading if you want to know its 
strengths and weaknesses compared to Purify or HeapAgent.

http://www.microquill.com/prod_ha/ha_comp.htm

-- Jake