At 12:45pm -0400 Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 2:19am -0400 Fri, 09 Sep 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )<--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{ [...code...] }
else if( 0 ) { [...code...] }
I checked the history, it's the
At 2:19am -0400 Fri, 09 Sep 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )<--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{ [...code...] }
else if( 0 ) { [...code...] }
I checked the history, it's there since 16/11/2000 (commit
5dc708093d1ee179099abdcbf0c6
On 09/11/2011 01:27 PM, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
What's the best thing to do :
- to keep objective C++ parts ?
- to replace objective C++ by plain (with or without boost) C++ ?
for me there are already too many languages and flavour of languages. I
would stay with plain C++, not adding objec
Hello,
What's the best thing to do :
- to keep objective C++ parts ?
- to replace objective C++ by plain (with or without boost) C++ ?
for me there are already too many languages and flavour of languages. I
would stay with plain C++, not adding objective C++ on top
Just my feelings
regar
Hello,
I got this comment of a cppcheck developper :
is this objective c++? Can the code be replaced in the tokenizer
with plain C++ somehow?
He seems to be right about objective C++. Then I made a opengrok research, 4
files use "@try". Perhaps, there are other files which use "@ expression",
si
Hello,
Following the pb "cppcheck duplicateExpression", I found why the
"duplicateExpression" wasn't detected on salframe.cxx from aqua part.
It's due to the @ use, for example @try, @catch and other things like this.
As soon as the "@ parts" are commented out, detection works.
I created the tick
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 08:19 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
> > I checked the history, it's there since 16/11/2000 (commit
> > 5dc708093d1ee179099abdcbf0c6f649b1c4deeb)
> >
> > could anyone explain to me the purpose of this ? Just a typo ?
>
> It's preced
On 09/08/2011 10:47 PM, julien2412 wrote:
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )<--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
Hello,
Here is the pb :
if( 0 )<--- Found duplicate if expressions.
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
Hello,
Cppcheck has detected a duplicateExpression in
vcl/ios/source/window/salframe.cxx, line 470
I checked on salframe.cxx of aqua, there's the same duplicate (line 631)
Here is the line :
if( pState->mnMask & (SAL_FRAMESTATE_MASK_X | SAL_FRAMESTATE_MASK_X) )
I compared with gtk part and think
On 09/06/11 13:03, serval2...@yahoo.fr wrote:
> Hello Jesse,
>
> Would it be possible before each cppcheck run to add this in the script :
> - cd
> - git pull -r
> - make clean && make
> ?
> The goal is obviously to run the last git version each time. The time of
> these few steps would be qu
On 13/08/11 09:38, Julien Nabet wrote:
Hello,
cppcheck detects division by 0 in sw/source/ui/vba/vbarows.cxx, line 266
I discussed this with Norbert on IRC, here what we propose to add
before this line :
if ((nNewWidth <= 0) || (nWidth <= 0))
{
OSL_ASSERT(!((nNewWidth <= 0) || (nWidth <= 0)))
Hello,
cppcheck detects division by 0 in sw/source/ui/vba/vbarows.cxx, line 266
I discussed this with Norbert on IRC, here what we propose to add before
this line :
if ((nNewWidth <= 0) || (nWidth <= 0))
{
OSL_ASSERT(!((nNewWidth <= 0) || (nWidth <= 0)));
return;
}
(we supposed "indent
Le 17/05/2011 15:04, Michael Meeks a écrit :
...
nDownLst< nDownLst
So - this is the guy.
sal_Bool operator<( const SwDistance& rTwo )
{ return nMain< rTwo.nMain || (
So - we end up with: that equating to:
nDownLst.nSub&& nDownLst.nSub&& nDownLst.n
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 19:08 +0200, Julien Nabet wrote:
> Here a line I get in cppcheck (updated today) :
> [source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194] ->
> [source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194]: (style) Same expression on both
> sides of '<'.
What fun :-)
> I checked the file git hi
Hello,
Here a line I get in cppcheck (updated today) :
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194] ->
[source/core/layout/flycnt.cxx:1194]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of '<'.
I checked the file git history, it's there since the beginning.
while ( pDownFrm && ( ( nDown.nMai
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 23:54 +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Joop Kiefte wrote:
> > Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
>
> I've annotated this file and found the added version since Sep 2010.
> Let's take a look from this link:
> http://op
Hello all,
Joop Kiefte wrote:
> Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
I've annotated this file and found the added version since Sep 2010.
Let's take a look from this link:
http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/diff/calc/sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx?r2=%2Fcalc%2Fs
Le 07/05/2011 16:01, Julien Nabet a écrit :
Hello,
Here are 2 examples of "Same expression on both sides of '!='" I found :
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507] ->
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507]: (style) Same expression on
both sides of '!='
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534] ->
IMPRESS:
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:86] ->
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:79]: (style) Found duplicate if expressions
if( 0 )
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
}
else if( 0 )
{
nFontID
IMPRESS:
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:86] ->
[sd/source/ui/func/bulmaper.cxx:79]: (style) Found duplicate if expressions
if( 0 )
{
nFontID = EE_CHAR_FONTINFO_CJK;
nFontHeightID = EE_CHAR_FONTHEIGHT_CJK;
nWeightID = EE_CHAR_WEIGHT_CJK;
nPostureID = EE_CHAR_ITALIC_CJK;
}
else if( 0 )
{
nFontID
Hi Julian,
Julien Nabet schrieb:
Hello,
Here are 2 examples of "Same expression on both sides of '!='" I found :
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507] ->
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of '!='
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534] ->
[sc/source/c
Maybe worth it to look those places up in the version control history...
2011/5/7 Rafael Dominguez :
> Well it does look weird, but its the same object getting compared on both
> sides, so i think theres a problem there, but better wait for someone with
> more experience in the code say something
Well it does look weird, but its the same object getting compared on both
sides, so i think theres a problem there, but better wait for someone with
more experience in the code say something about it.
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Julien Nabet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are 2 examples of "Same e
Hello,
Here are 2 examples of "Same expression on both sides of '!='" I found :
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507] ->
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:507]: (style) Same expression on both
sides of '!='
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534] ->
[sc/source/core/tool/rangeutl.cxx:534]: (sty
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 02:06:54PM +0200, Julien Nabet wrote:
> Hello,
Hi,
many thanks for your hard work!
> I've runned a cppcheck last git version on libs-core (master branch
> updated today) and found this oddity :
> [basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:265] ->
> [basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:260]:
Hello,
I've runned a cppcheck last git version on libs-core (master branch
updated today) and found this oddity :
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:265] ->
[basic/source/app/mybasic.cxx:260]: (style) Found duplicate branches for
if and else.
[embeddedobj/source/msole/olepersist.cxx:1835] ->
[embe
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 16:23 -0300, Kayo Hamid wrote:
> From cppcheck: Using .empty() instead of .size() can be faster.
> .size() can take linear time but .empty() is guaranteed to take
> constant time
Many thanks for that other patch. I just pushed it too!
--
Cédric Bosdonnat
From cppcheck: Using .empty() instead of .size() can be faster.
.size() can take linear time but .empty() is guaranteed to take
constant time
Sending for review.
revol_diff --git a/basegfx/source/polygon/b2dpolypolygoncutter.cxx b/basegfx/source/polygon/b2dpolypolygoncutter.cxx
Howdy *,
So, if you browse to http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/ to see the
cppcheck run, you'll notice a few things:
* Less CSS.
* Sortable columns!
Odd problems:
* You may notice some "blanks" in the source code links, like this:
http://libreoffice.boldandbusted.com/680.html#line-462 . I be
On 02/17/11 01:50, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:09 -0800, some...@boldandbusted.com wrote:
>> Hi Caolán,
>>
>> So cppcheck can't find the headers it needs? Is this a bug in cppcheck,
>> or LO's construction of header file paths? And how many examples of
>> cppcheck false positi
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:09 -0800, some...@boldandbusted.com wrote:
> Hi Caolán,
>
> So cppcheck can't find the headers it needs? Is this a bug in cppcheck,
> or LO's construction of header file paths? And how many examples of
> cppcheck false positives due to this problem are present? Does a clea
On 02/16/11 12:43, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 13:26 +0100, Julien Nabet wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> With the last git version of cppcheck, I've got in the master branch
>> writer/sw/source/ui/dbui this :
>> [./dbmgr.cxx:222]: (style) Unused private function
>> 'SwConnectionDisposedL
More simple cpp check clean ups.
Andy>From ddd64b735bc5dfecb8a7a2838072003e2b36bb26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Holder
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:55:22 +
Subject: [PATCH] cppcheck: Prefer prefix ++/-- operators
---
vcl/win/source/gdi/salgdi3.cxx |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertio
Here are some patches removing unused variables found by cppcheck
Andy >From f4907a0cda8c414fe27c42c24a262c0a761daf2e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Holder
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:44:23 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] cppcheck: Variables not used
---
binfilter/bf_sw/source/filter/w4w/sw_w4wpa
Ignore those warnings for now, cppcheck 1.47 will fix (probably all/more
of) them, see http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/cppcheck/ticket/2307 for
details.
C.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mail
I not sure if this fixes the "Invalid number of character ({) when
these macros are defined" error from cppcheck but the start of a
namespace declaration being inside a #if without it's closing } has to
be wrong.
Andy>From f0146a90f638cac49ef2f6020515adde4da4b1ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 12:44 +0100, Julien wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git
> this morning) and i get this error :
> I don't understand where's the pb with snprintf, pString has a size of
> 1024 and snprintf takes a size of 1024.
>
> Is t
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:16, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:44, Julien wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git this
>> morning) and i get this error :
>> snprintf size is out of bounds
>>
>> ex:
>> [./libs-gui/vcl/
On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:44, Julien wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git this
> morning) and i get this error :
> snprintf size is out of bounds
>
> ex:
> [./libs-gui/vcl/unx/source/printergfx/common_gfx.cxx:542]: (error) snprintf
> size is
Hello,
I'm currently running the last version of cppcheck (i updated with git
this morning) and i get this error :
snprintf size is out of bounds
ex:
[./libs-gui/vcl/unx/source/printergfx/common_gfx.cxx:542]: (error)
snprintf size is out of bounds
[./libs-gui/vcl/unx/source/printergfx/common_
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 15:29 +0200, Gert Faller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been running 'Cppcheck 1.44' on the whole source 27/10/10 10 GTM (I have
> a
> slow machine) : I join the raw output sorted by 'Error Type'.
>
> I run it too with '--enable=unusedFunctions' : I got 3195 matches... looks
> en
Hi,
I've been running 'Cppcheck 1.44' on the whole source 27/10/10 10 GTM (I have a
slow machine) : I join the raw output sorted by 'Error Type'.
I run it too with '--enable=unusedFunctions' : I got 3195 matches... looks
enormous.
I'll check part of this output. Do I send the file ?
I've been
43 matches
Mail list logo
