Hi,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:14 AM Miklos Vajna <vmik...@collabora.com> wrote: > I'm more interested in running such tools locally > > < - snip -> > > The other problem with cppcheck is that it doesn't build on an existing > c++ parser from a compiler (not based on e.g. gcc or clang), so its > signal/noise ratio is lower than e.g. coverity or clang-tidy. > > Miklos, thank you for taking the time to explain things. I already concluded that there was little interest in the job, but now I also know why that is. (Also, although Luke had contacted me before his post to the mailing list, I didn't know up front that Luke was going to do so and in what manner. I may or may not agree with what he has stated.) On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:51 PM Luke Benes <lukebe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The other problem with cppcheck is that it doesn't build on an existing > > c++ parser from a compiler > > https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/3300446/cppcheck-clang-import > > They are working on a clang AST importer. Experimental support has already > landed. > > Which just got removed again: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/commit/207361b174102f38909aec9a996b944ecb370464 - Maarten
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
