> It was mentioned that the correct way is to generate the proper project
> structure for cppcheck using our existing tools that generate IDE
> integrations (and they have correct include correct includes, deps and all).
Mike,
Yes, agreed. But AFAIK, no one other than me is looking into this.
Hi Luke,
I believe that continuing the "manual approach" is moot. It was
mentioned that the correct way is to generate the proper project
structure for cppcheck using our existing tools that generate IDE
integrations (and they have correct include correct includes, deps and all).
--
Best
> Was it not you how came up with the idea to reduce the false positives with
> specifying the includes?
No, it was not my idea. On #cppcheck, I was told by danmar, the primary
developer of cppcheck, that our script is using cppcheck incorrectly. Without
being passed the same include
Hi Luke, all
It does not matter that variableScope is a low priority issue or a can be
dangerous . If someone want to disable a check it can be disabled
explictiely (I guess).
The main point that this change seems to simply reduce the scope of
cppcheck. If this is the purpose then we can just run
Hi Luke,
Am October 25, 2018 12:40:33 AM UTC schrieb Luke Benes :
>In my first attempt to improve the quality of the cppcheck reports,
>Tamás Zolnai pointed out that including every possible header resulted
>in some valid warnings not being reported.
[snip]
>It seems many valid variableScope
On 25.10.18 02:40, Luke Benes wrote:
It seems many valid variableScope warnings are still being omitted.
those warnings are quite dangerous anyway if naively believed, tdf#96089
was quite a pain to debug...
___
LibreOffice mailing list
In my first attempt to improve the quality of the cppcheck reports, Tamás
Zolnai pointed out that including every possible header resulted in some valid
warnings not being reported.
Instead, how about just including only our primary include folder of ./include
with the '-Iinclude' parameter?
Hi Luke,
slacka ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 2., K, 4:05):
> The goal of my manual approach was to configure Cppcheck to minimize false
> positives. In doing so, I was forced to only scan the Linux code base, as
> only Linux has Linux system headers and does not have Window's or BSD's...
> So
On 02/10/2018 04:05, slacka wrote:
There are many knobs I could tweak. For example, since my last post, I
discovered I could remove the "-DNDEBUG" to scan the debug code path. I
could also remove the "-j 4" option to allow Cppcheck to scan for unused
functions. I don't know what is most useful,
The goal of my manual approach was to configure Cppcheck to minimize false
positives. In doing so, I was forced to only scan the Linux code base, as
only Linux has Linux system headers and does not have Window's or BSD's...
So I am not surprised that some valid issues were not reported.
There
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 08:52:19AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann
wrote:
> That smells like gbuild-to-ide needs to be run from within gbuild's
> "config_host.mk polluted" environment, which can be done via the "cmd" make
> target, i.e., something like
>
> make cmd cmd='bin/gbuild-to-ide --ide
On 30/09/2018 05:20, Luke Benes wrote:
Also when there seems to have been a coding style that all <> includes outside
of /inc folders should be defined by their relative path. Cppcheck only complains
about 4 missing includes that do not follow this pattern.(see my earlier email on
oddball
On 30/09/2018 15:04, Maarten Hoes wrote:
So, my futile attempt was :
./bin/gbuild-to-ide --ide vim --make make
Which resulted in this:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./bin/gbuild-to-ide", line 1664, in
gbuildparser = GbuildParser(args.makecmd).parse()
File
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM Luke Benes wrote:
> Maarten,
> Thanks for your suggestion here and your earlier contributions to the
> Cppcheck Report. I agree that we should create the include file
> dynamically. However the approach used by your script seems like overkill.
> Cppcheck
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:29 AM Tamás Zolnai
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what your modification is doing. I just checked the report
> you attached and I compared it with the full report and I see your change
> filters out not only false positives.
>
>
Am I interpreting correctly here that the
Hi,
slacka wrote
> Ideally, the next step would be to extract the "DEFS": and "INCLUDE": from
> gbuild-to-ide and pass that to cppcheck. But that's for another time.
Well, the very name 'gbuild-to-ide' sounds intriguing, but I can't figure
out what it is supposed to do (and how could it help
Hello Luke,
I'm not sure what your modification is doing. I just checked the report you
attached and I compared it with the full report and I see your change
filters out not only false positives. I used to use the cppcheck report to
give my students a small task for their first patch. So it would
Maarten,
Thanks for your suggestion here and your earlier contributions to the Cppcheck
Report. I agree that we should create the include file dynamically. However the
approach used by your script seems like overkill. Cppcheck already finds that
quoted includes like
#include
Hi,
If, by specifying (additional ?) include files/directories and adding
defines, you managed to bring down the massive zillions of warnings back to
just 30, it seems to me that you managed to do what the script should have
been doing all along to begin with.
;-)
Just a small remark (and you
As I mentioned before, by manually specifying includes and preprocessor
configurations, I was able to reduce the number of warning from ~9000 to 30.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ai_Zcj18cdQxVIQESb4lJr5K9LnzjnpW/view?usp=sharing
You can view it by unzipping and opening 'index.html'.
Caolán
Hi!
On 9/13/2018 8:59 AM, Luke Benes wrote:
By manually specifying includes and preprocessor configurations, I was able to
reduce the number of warning from ~9000 to 30.
Great!
Ideally, the next step would be to extract the "DEFS": and "INCLUDE": from
gbuild-to-ide and pass that to
By manually specifying includes and preprocessor configurations, I was able to
reduce the number of warning from ~9000 to 30.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ai_Zcj18cdQxVIQESb4lJr5K9LnzjnpW/view?usp=sharing
You can view it by unzipping and opening 'index.html'.Did this uncover any
valid
22 matches
Mail list logo
