https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2291
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Aitchison <e...@aitchison.me.uk> --- > There's some false-positives, and some bits of valid coding > it just doesn't parse - so it's sill a manual job. I've mostly written a Makefile and half-written some docs to simplify using cppcheck with exim. It has separate targets for errors, warnings and unusedfunctions. I've included caching to make repeated runs quicker, but each target needs a separate cppcheck-build-dir. I knocked up a script to pull out the relevant detail level from a single cache of a full-detail cppcheck run, but then I then realised that cppcheck-gui might be a better option. Also considering whether to extend the exim test system to compare a cppcheck run with a curated output, thus filtering out known false-positives and the code it doesn't parse. Any views on which direction would be most useful to exim developers ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## subscription configuration (requires account): ## https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-dev.lists.exim.org/ ## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account): ## exim-dev-unsubscr...@lists.exim.org ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
