On 13/03/2015 16:47, Roman Khimov wrote:
Both scan-build and cppcheck complain here. Sure, it's not an error, just a
harmless dead code, but well, tools don't like dead code and I personally
don't like it either, so IMO it's better to drop it if there are no valid
reasons for it to stay.
Fine,
В письме от 13 марта 2015 16:16:26 пользователь Laurent Bercot написал:
> 1/7: I incremented 's' for clarity, because that's I always do in scanning
> functions. Normally the compiler ignores the useless increments and this
> does not worsen the resulting code.
> Do you think the increment actu
On 13/03/2015 15:24, Roman I Khimov wrote:
Hello.
Here at Altell we daily pass all of our project's software (and that is kinda
whole distribution) through special 'static analysis' build that doesn't
actually produce any output other than reports from two (currently) tools:
cppcheck and Clang's
Hello.
Here at Altell we daily pass all of our project's software (and that is kinda
whole distribution) through special 'static analysis' build that doesn't
actually produce any output other than reports from two (currently) tools:
cppcheck and Clang's scan-build.
As we've added skalibs into our
