Re: Cppcheck: 'TimeBuffer' is not assigned a value in basic module

Hi Julien
On 12/02/13 09:00, julien2412 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Cppcheck reported this:
> basic/source/comp/sbcomp.cxx
> 600     unassignedVariable      style   Variable 'TimeBuffer' is not assigned a value.
>
> Here are the lines:
>      600     char TimeBuffer[200];
>      601 #ifdef DBG_TRACE_PROFILING
>      602     if( bPrintTimeStamp )
>      603     {
>      604         double dDiffTime = dCurTime - GdLastTime;
>      605         GdLastTime = dCurTime;
>      606         sprintf( TimeBuffer, "\t\t// Time = %f ms / += %f ms",
> dCurTime*1000.0, dDiffTime*1000.0 );
>      607     }
>      608 #endif
>      609
>      610     if( bSTMT )
>      611     {
>      612         lcl_lineOut( rStr_STMNT.getStr(), lcl_getSpaces( nIndent ),
>      613                      (bPrintTimeStamp && !GbIncludePCodes) ?
> TimeBuffer : NULL );
>      614     }
> See
> http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/basic/source/comp/sbcomp.cxx#600
>
> By taking a look at the file, I notice there was 1 #ifdef DBG_TRACE_BASIC
> and several blocks of #ifdef DBG_TRACE_PROFILING. Is it really useful to
> keep both? What about removing DBG_TRACE_PROFILING and considering that
> DBG_TRACE_BASIC should enable all debug (Basic + profiling) ?
I never used this snazy debug support but always wanted to check it out, 
being able to dump out the pcode ( which at a quick glance seems to be 
supported ) is *very* useful.
I am not convinced the timing information support offered when 
DBG_TRACE_PROFILING is really useful ( cachegrind etc seem a better 
choice for that ) But.. then again a cheap and nasty indicator doesn't 
do any harm, personally I would not lump the 2 together I would guess 
the timer related output if it were always on would introduce lots of 
*noise* into the trace info. For me the choice would be either squash 
the warning or remove (carefully) the DBG_TRACE_PROFILING related 
functionality ( and the offending variable).
Now IMHO removing that stuff is probably more effort than it's worth and 
squashing the warning would be the easiest thing to do.

would
TimerBuffer[0]  = '\0' satisfy cppcheck or is the following statement legal
char TimeBuffer[200="";
( it works for me on gcc but would not bet its really valid c++ )

Noel