> On 24 Jun 2022, at 13:17, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24/06/2022 13:01, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> Hi Julien, > > Hi Luca, > >>>> +First recommendation is to use exactly the same version in this page and >>>> provide >>>> +the same option to the build system, so that every Xen developer can >>>> reproduce >>>> +the same findings. >>> >>> I am not sure I agree. I think it is good that each developper use their >>> own version (so long it is supported), so they may be able to find issues >>> that may not appear with 2.7. >> Yes I understand, but as Bertrand says, other version of this tool doesn’t >> work quite well. > > I have replied to this on Bertrand e-mail. > > >> I agree that everyone should use their own version, but for the sake of >> reproducibility >> of the findings, I think we should have a common ground. > > I will reply to this below. > >> The community can however propose from time to time to bump the version as >> long as we can say it works (maybe >> crossing the reports between cppcheck, eclair, other proprietary tools). > > This would mean we should de-support 2.7 which sounds wrong if it worked > before.
Sure, I guess that as long as we don’t see regressions from version X to X+1 we are fine with versions >= X. >>> >>>> + >>>> +Install cppcheck in the system >>> >>> NIT: s/in/on/ I think. >> Sure will fix >>> >>>> +============================== >>>> + >>>> +Cppcheck can be retrieved from the github repository or by downloading the >>>> +tarball, the version tested so far is the 2.7: >>>> + >>>> + - https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/tree/2.7 >>>> + - https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/archive/2.7.tar.gz >>>> + >>>> +To compile and install it, here the complete command line: >>>> + >>>> +make MATCHCOMPILER=yes \ >>>> + FILESDIR=/usr/share/cppcheck \ >>>> + CFGDIR=/usr/share/cppcheck/cfg \ >>>> + HAVE_RULES=yes \ >>>> + CXXFLAGS="-O2 -DNDEBUG -Wall -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-function" \ >>>> + install >>> >>> Let me start that I am not convinced that our documentation should explain >>> how to build cppcheck. >>> >>> But if that's desire, then I think you ought to explain why we need to >>> update CXXFLAGS (I would expect cppcheck to build everywhere without >>> specifying additional flags). >> Yes you are right, this is the recommended command line for building as in >> https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/blob/main/readme.md section GNU make, I >> can add the source. > > I think we should remove the command line and tell the user to read the > cppcheck README.md. Ok sounds good to me > >> My intention when writing this page was to have a common ground between Xen >> developers, so that if one day someone came up with a fix for something, we >> are able to reproduce >> the finding all together. > Well, if someone find a fix you want to check against all versions not the > one that warns. Otherwise, you can end up in a situation where you silence > cppcheck 2.10 (just making up a version) but then introduce a warning in > cppcheck 2.7. > > To me this is no different than other software used to build Xen. We don't > tell the user that they should always build with GCC x.y.z. Instead, we > provide a minimum version. This has multiple benefits: > 1) The user doesn't need to rebuild the software and can use the one provided > by the distributions > 2) Different versions find different (most of the time) valid bugs. So we are > getting towards a better codebase. > Ok I see your point, instead of saying “we use version X.Y, I will say >=X.Y”, your comment on Bertrand’s reply is on this line. I would keep the section about compiling cppcheck since many recent distro doesn’t provide cppcheck >=2.7 yet (and 2.8 is broken), If you agree with it. For this one: > > Thanks for the information. How about writing something like: > > " > The minimum version required for cppcheck is 2.7. Note that at the time of > writing (June 2022), the version 2.8 is known to be broken [1]. > " > > [1] > https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/discussion/general/thread/bfc3ab6c41/?limit=25 > > Sure, I can add it and rephrase that section. Cheers, Luca
