Hi Luke,
slacka <lukebenes@hotmail.com> 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 I am not surprised that some valid issues were not reported.
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, and what valid issues were
not
being reported. This is why I have asked the ML for feedback.
I used to find valid issues amongs the variableScope warnings for example.
Check a frequently modified module (e.g. sw, sc, sd).
One example:
https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/cppcheck_reports/master/1501.html#line-1729
I just checked a few of these warnings now and they should be there in a
Linux specific analysis too. The linked one seems not a platform specific
or debug code. So it would be good to find out why your report does not
contains this one.
In general I doubt that a static analyzer does not find any issue (at least
some false positives) in sw module for example (if it was not cleaned up
with this analyzer earlier). You report contains no issue in sw. It seems
to me the scope of the analysis is greatly reduced by your change, that's
why it does not find a lot of issues. I'm not sure how the false positives
can be reduced by specifing the includes. Which false positives are coming
from wrong includes?
Best Regards,
Tamás
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.