At 2:19am -0400 Fri, 09 Sep 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{ [...code...] }
else if( 0 ) { [...code...] }
I checked the history, it's there since 16/11/2000 (commit
At 12:45pm -0400 Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 2:19am -0400 Fri, 09 Sep 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{ [...code...] }
else if( 0 ) { [...code...] }
I checked the history, it's
On 09/11/2011 01:27 PM, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
What's the best thing to do :
- to keep objective C++ parts ?
- to replace objective C++ by plain (with or without boost) C++ ?
for me there are already too many languages and flavour of languages. I
would stay with plain C++, not adding
Hello,
I got this comment of a cppcheck developper :
is this objective c++? Can the code be replaced in the tokenizer
with plain C++ somehow?
He seems to be right about objective C++. Then I made a opengrok research, 4
files use @try. Perhaps, there are other files which use @ expression,
since
Hello,
What's the best thing to do :
- to keep objective C++ parts ?
- to replace objective C++ by plain (with or without boost) C++ ?
for me there are already too many languages and flavour of languages. I
would stay with plain C++, not adding objective C++ on top
Just my feelings
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 08:19 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
I checked the history, it's there since 16/11/2000 (commit
5dc708093d1ee179099abdcbf0c6f649b1c4deeb)
could anyone explain to me the purpose of this ? Just a typo ?
It's preceded by
Hello,
Following the pb cppcheck duplicateExpression, I found why the
duplicateExpression wasn't detected on salframe.cxx from aqua part.
It's due to the @ use, for example @try, @catch and other things like this.
As soon as the @ parts are commented out, detection works.
I created the ticket
Hello,
Cppcheck has detected a duplicateExpression in
vcl/ios/source/window/salframe.cxx, line 470
I checked on salframe.cxx of aqua, there's the same duplicate (line 631)
Here is the line :
if( pState-mnMask (SAL_FRAMESTATE_MASK_X | SAL_FRAMESTATE_MASK_X) )
I compared with gtk part and think
Hello,
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
On 09/06/11 13:03, serval2...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hello Jesse,
Would it be possible before each cppcheck run to add this in the script :
- cd cppcheck repo
- git pull -r
- make clean make
?
The goal is obviously to run the last git version each time. The time of
these few steps would be
On 13/08/11 09:38, Julien Nabet wrote:
Hello,
cppcheck detects division by 0 in sw/source/ui/vba/vbarows.cxx, line 266
I discussed this with Norbert on IRC, here what we propose to add
before this line :
if ((nNewWidth = 0) || (nWidth = 0))
{
OSL_ASSERT(!((nNewWidth = 0) || (nWidth = 0)));
Hello,
cppcheck detects division by 0 in sw/source/ui/vba/vbarows.cxx, line 266
I discussed this with Norbert on IRC, here what we propose to add before
this line :
if ((nNewWidth = 0) || (nWidth = 0))
{
OSL_ASSERT(!((nNewWidth = 0) || (nWidth = 0)));
return;
}
(we supposed indent
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 19:08 +0200, Julien Nabet wrote:
Here a line I get in cppcheck (updated today) :
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194] -
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of ''.
What fun :-)
I checked the file git history,
Le 17/05/2011 15:04, Michael Meeks a écrit :
...
nDownLst nDownLst
So - this is the guy.
sal_Bool operator( const SwDistance rTwo )
{ return nMain rTwo.nMain || (
So - we end up with: that equating to:
nDownLst.nSub nDownLst.nSub nDownLst.nSub
Hello,
Here a line I get in cppcheck (updated today) :
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194] -
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of ''.
I checked the file git history, it's there since the beginning.
while ( pDownFrm ( ( nDown.nMain
Hello all,
Joop Kiefte wrote:
Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
I've annotated this file and found the added version since Sep 2010.
Let's take a look from this link:
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 23:54 +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote:
Hello all,
Joop Kiefte wrote:
Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
I've annotated this file and found the added version since Sep 2010.
Let's take a look from this link:
IMPRESS:
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:86] -
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:79]: (style) Found duplicate if expressions
if( 0 )
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
}
else if( 0 )
{
nFontID
IMPRESS:
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:86] -
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:79]: (style) Found duplicate if expressions
if( 0 )
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
}
else if( 0 )
{
nFontID
Le 07/05/2011 16:01, Julien Nabet a écrit :
Hello,
Here are 2 examples of Same expression on both sides of '!=' I found :
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507] -
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507]: (style) Same expression on
both sides of '!='
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534] -
Hello,
Here are 2 examples of Same expression on both sides of '!=' I found :
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507] -
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of '!='
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534] -
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534]: (style)
Well it does look weird, but its the same object getting compared on both
sides, so i think theres a problem there, but better wait for someone with
more experience in the code say something about it.
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hello,
Here are 2
Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
2011/5/7 Rafael Dominguez venccsra...@gmail.com:
Well it does look weird, but its the same object getting compared on both
sides, so i think theres a problem there, but better wait for someone with
more experience in the
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 02:06:54PM +0200, Julien Nabet wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
many thanks for your hard work!
I've runned a cppcheck last git version on libs-core (master branch
updated today) and found this oddity :
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:265] -
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:260]:
Hello,
I've runned a cppcheck last git version on libs-core (master branch
updated today) and found this oddity :
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:265] -
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:260]: (style) Found duplicate branches for
if and else.
[embeddedobj/source/msole/olepersist.cxx:1835] -
From cppcheck: Using .empty() instead of .size() can be faster.
.size() can take linear time but .empty() is guaranteed to take
constant time
Sending for review.
revol_diff --git a/basegfx/source/polygon/b2dpolypolygoncutter.cxx
Howdy *,
So, if you browse to http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/ to see the
cppcheck run, you'll notice a few things:
* Less CSS.
* Sortable columns!
Odd problems:
* You may notice some blanks in the source code links, like this:
http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/680.html#line-462 . I
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:09 -0800, some...@boldandbusted.com wrote:
Hi Caolán,
So cppcheck can't find the headers it needs? Is this a bug in cppcheck,
or LO's construction of header file paths? And how many examples of
cppcheck false positives due to this problem are present? Does a clear
On 02/16/11 12:43, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 13:26 +0100, Julien Nabet wrote:
Hello
With the last git version of cppcheck, I've got in the master branch
writer/sw/source/ui/dbui this :
[./dbmgr.cxx:222]: (style) Unused private function
More simple cpp check clean ups.
AndyFrom ddd64b735bc5dfecb8a7a2838072003e2b36bb26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Holder andy.m.hol...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:55:22 +
Subject: [PATCH] cppcheck: Prefer prefix ++/-- operators
---
vcl/win/source/gdi/salgdi3.cxx |2 +-
1
Here are some patches removing unused variables found by cppcheck
Andy From f4907a0cda8c414fe27c42c24a262c0a761daf2e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Holder andy.m.hol...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:44:23 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] cppcheck: Variables not used
---
Ignore those warnings for now, cppcheck 1.47 will fix (probably all/more
of) them, see http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/cppcheck/ticket/2307 for
details.
C.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
I not sure if this fixes the Invalid number of character ({) when
these macros are defined error from cppcheck but the start of a
namespace declaration being inside a #if without it's closing } has to
be wrong.
AndyFrom f0146a90f638cac49ef2f6020515adde4da4b1ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 12:44 +0100, Julien wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git
this morning) and i get this error :
I don't understand where's the pb with snprintf, pString has a size of
1024 and snprintf takes a size of 1024.
Is this a
Hello,
I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git
this morning) and i get this error :
snprintf size is out of bounds
ex:
[./libs-gui/vcl/unx/source/printergfx/common_gfx.cxx:542]: (error)
snprintf size is out of bounds
On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:44, Julien jnabet2...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git this
morning) and i get this error :
snprintf size is out of bounds
ex:
[./libs-gui/vcl/unx/source/printergfx/common_gfx.cxx:542]: (error) snprintf
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:16, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:44, Julien jnabet2...@free.fr wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git this
morning) and i get this error :
snprintf size is out of bounds
ex:
Hi,
I've been running 'Cppcheck 1.44' on the whole source 27/10/10 10 GTM (I have a
slow machine) : I join the raw output sorted by 'Error Type'.
I run it too with '--enable=unusedFunctions' : I got 3195 matches... looks
enormous.
I'll check part of this output. Do I send the file ?
I've
39 matches
Mail list logo
