Re: Cppcheck: Reduction of False Positives: Manual Approach

> Was it not you how came up with the idea to reduce the false positives with specifying the 
> includes?



No, it was not my idea. On #cppcheck, I was told by danmar, the primary developer of cppcheck, that 
our script is using cppcheck incorrectly. Without being passed the same include locations as we 
pass the compiler, we should expect a large amount of garbage.



In fact, according to the developer, we should not get any False Postives if we call cppcheck 
correctly. He encouraged me to file bug reports for any FP that remain, once cppcheck is being run 
properly.



> The main point that this change seems to simply reduce the scope of cppcheck. If this is the 
> purpose then we can just run cppcheck on an empty file and so we won't see any issue (all false 
> positives will disappear).



Again, No my goal is to improve the Signal-to-noise. FPs can be dangerous as in tdf#96089 and make 
it much harder to spot real issues.



Currently, I am in the process of comparing old cppcheck fixes with and without the '-Iinclude' 
option.  So far, the three that I have checked would not be filtered out. In other words, had we 
been calling cppcheck the way I propose, these issues would have been much easier for developers to 
spot(4000 vs 500).


-Luke