On 5/18/12 1:42 PM, "Marek Klein" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >Hello > >2012/5/17 Julien Nabet <[email protected]> > >> >> I'm not top posting. >Hello, > >I just git clone Lilypond project and launched cppcheck (git updated >today). >I thought it could interest you, here are some examples : >[lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594] -> [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594]: (style) Same >expression on both sides of '-' > 592 if (!follow_beam) > 593 { > 594 points.push_back (Offset (x0 - x0, staff[dir])); > 595 points.push_back (Offset (x1 - x0, staff[dir])); > 596 } > >[lily/tie-engraver.cc:240]: (performance) Prefer prefix ++/-- operators >for >non-primitive types > 240 for (; it < heads_to_tie_.end (); it++) > 241 report_unterminated_tie (*it); >(+ it's safer to use it != heads_to_tie_.end ()) > >[lily/paper-book.cc:346]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for >'cols' >emptiness > 346 if (cols.size ()) > 347 { > 348 Paper_column *col = dynamic_cast<Paper_column *> >(cols.back ()); > 349 col->set_property (symbol, permission); > 350 col->find_prebroken_piece (LEFT)->set_property (symbol, >permission); > 351 } > >If you're interested, I can send you the full report (since there's no >possibility of attachment), just tell me where I can send it. > >Julien. > > > >This need some discussion before tracking an issue, I think - therefore >cc-ing devel... I think that it would be worth creating an issue, and attaching the output file from cppcheck, as long as the file is not too long. At any rate, I'd like to see the output file. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
