On 02/02/2012 09:08 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
Unfortunately that still has a problem. After rBoxes.erase(toErase),
it (which is the same as toErase) is invalidated, so incrementing it
(up in the for(...;...;...) part) has undefined behavior.
The
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/02/2012 09:08 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
Unfortunately that still has a problem. After rBoxes.erase(toErase),
it (which is the same as toErase) is invalidated, so incrementing it
(up in the
On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
The standard idiom is
for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
if (doErase) {
m.erase(i++);
} else {
++i;
}
}
but doesn't that have the same problem? i is
On 03/02/12 17:21, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
The standard idiom is
for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
if (doErase) {
m.erase(i++);
} else {
++i;
}
}
On 02/03/2012 05:31 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
ah, that's surprising.
that's shocking ;)
see, that is why i almost always write the i++ as an extra statement,
i'm never quite exactly sure what it does, and when :)
There is a sequence point (in C++03 parlance; the nomenclature changed
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:31 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 17:21, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/03/2012 04:18 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 14:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
The standard idiom is
for (iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end();) {
if (doErase) {
On 03/02/12 18:17, Terrence Enger wrote:
Stephan, I am sorry to question your expertise, but I wonder ... is
your reassurance based on knowledge of the language standard, or is
based on observed behaviour of C++ compilers?
hahaha, i believe that among all the developers who ever worked on
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 18:30 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 03/02/12 18:17, Terrence Enger wrote:
Stephan, I am sorry to question your expertise, but I wonder ... is
your reassurance based on knowledge of the language standard, or is
based on observed behaviour of C++ compilers?
hahaha,
I followed the idiom you indicated, commited and pushed on master (see
9d0136679e441413b6945d2a40aa892b50ee19a8)
Thank you Stephan for the details about C++
Hope that C++11 will spread quickly because all these things aren't very
intuitive.
Julien
--
View this message in context:
On 02/01/2012 11:40 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Cppcheck reports this :
core/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
970 StlMissingComparisonstyle Missing bounds check for extra iterator
increment in loop.
Here are the lines :
961 // dann mal die Tabellenkoepfe raus:
962
Hello Julien
On 02/01/2012 11:40 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here are the lines :
961 // dann mal die Tabellenkoepfe raus:
962 for( SwSelBoxes::iterator it = rBoxes.begin(); it !=
rBoxes.end(); ++it )
963 {
964 pLine =
On Thursday 02 of February 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/01/2012 11:40 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here are the lines :
961 // dann mal die Tabellenkoepfe raus:
962 for( SwSelBoxes::iterator it = rBoxes.begin(); it !=
rBoxes.end(); ++it )
963
On 02/02/2012 10:13 AM, Marcel Metz wrote:
If the box that is represented by `it` should be deleted you could use.
970 it = rBoxes.erase( it );
Unfortunately, this is only C++11, not C++03.
Stephan
___
LibreOffice mailing list
On 02/02/2012 11:26 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I agree with all the points, but in Julien's defense, I remember exactly this
same approach was pushed in recently as a fix to the same issue elsewhere.
Might well be, I probably didn't notice. And this is in no way meant to
criticize Julien --
On Thursday 02 of February 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 02/02/2012 11:26 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I agree with all the points, but in Julien's defense, I remember
exactly this same approach was pushed in recently as a fix to the same
issue elsewhere.
Might well be, I probably didn't
On 02/02/2012 02:06 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
I definitely didn't mean to get formal here, I simply meant a description of
how to actually handle this, as it turns up now and then, and STL doesn't
make this trivial.
In which case the answer should be to read Item 9 Choose carefully
among
Would this patch better ? (I kept the for loop)
diff --git a/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
b/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
index 33b953e..5c626dd 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
@@ -967,8 +967,8 @@ void SwTableFormula::GetBoxes( const
Hi,
Cppcheck reports this :
core/sw/source/core/fields/cellfml.cxx
970 StlMissingComparisonstyle Missing bounds check for extra iterator
increment in loop.
Here are the lines :
961 // dann mal die Tabellenkoepfe raus:
962 for( SwSelBoxes::iterator it =
18 matches
Mail list logo
