Re: Cppcheck reports
On 18/05/2012 22:27, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 5/18/12 1:42 PM, Marek Kleinma...@gregoriana.sk wrote:
Hello
2012/5/17 Julien Nabetserval2...@yahoo.fr
I'm not top posting.
Hello,
I just git clone Lilypond project and launched cppcheck (git updated
today).
I thought it could interest you, here are some examples :
[lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594] - [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594]: (style) Same
expression on both sides of '-'
592 if (!follow_beam)
593 {
594 points.push_back (Offset (x0 - x0, staff[dir]));
595 points.push_back (Offset (x1 - x0, staff[dir]));
596 }
[lily/tie-engraver.cc:240]: (performance) Prefer prefix ++/-- operators
for
non-primitive types
240 for (; it heads_to_tie_.end (); it++)
241 report_unterminated_tie (*it);
(+ it's safer to use it != heads_to_tie_.end ())
[lily/paper-book.cc:346]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for
'cols'
emptiness
346 if (cols.size ())
347 {
348 Paper_column *col = dynamic_castPaper_column *
(cols.back ());
349 col-set_property (symbol, permission);
350 col-find_prebroken_piece (LEFT)-set_property (symbol,
permission);
351 }
If you're interested, I can send you the full report (since there's no
possibility of attachment), just tell me where I can send it.
Julien.
This need some discussion before tracking an issue, I think - therefore
cc-ing devel...
I think that it would be worth creating an issue, and attaching the output
file from cppcheck, as long as the file is not too long.
At any rate, I'd like to see the output file.
I attached the file. As for the issue, I'm not sure having well
understood your process.
Anyway if it can help.
To have the file report, just follow these very simple steps :
1) retrieve cppcheck
/git clone https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck.git/
2) go to cppcheck and compile
/cd cppcheck make/
3) go to lilypond-git and launch cppcheck
/~/cppcheck/cppcheck/cppcheck --enable=all ./ 2./cppcheck_report.txt
/
(it launches cppcheck with all the checking rules + put the found
elements in cppcheck_report.txt + you can follow the progress)
Regards,
Julien
cppcheck_report.txt.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Cppcheck reports patch for 2546
On 19/05/2012 00:36, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Thanks for the file, Julien. I have split the warnings into various
issues.
See issues 2545, 2546, and 2548 through 2554 on the issue tracker.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2545colspec=ID%20Type%2
0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2546colspec=ID%20Type%2
0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
etc.
Julien, if you want to fix any of these, I'd be happy to help you get
patches reviewed and pushed.
Here's instructions on uploading a patch for review:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/commits-and-patches
#uploading-a-patch-for-review
Since I don't have a Google account to sign in to
http://codereview.appspot.com/, I attached the patch for 2546.
Don't hesitate to tell me if it's ok or not. (I attached a link to why
prefix is better).
Julien.
PS : about why it's better to use != instead of for end iterator
comparison, see http://forums.codeguru.com/archive/index.php/t-428940.html
Sorry, I would have preferred a more official link
From d14506cc2b98634be4fed45f142e0fb09bdff311 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 07:33:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix 2546: Prefix incrementers may be preferred for
non-primitive types
See http://en.allexperts.com/q/C-1040/Increment-operators.htm for some explanation
---
lily/dot-column.cc |2 +-
lily/dot-configuration.cc | 10 +-
lily/note-spacing-engraver.cc |2 +-
lily/skyline.cc| 14 +++---
lily/tie-engraver.cc |4 ++--
lily/tie-formatting-problem.cc |2 +-
lily/tie-performer.cc |2 +-
7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lily/dot-column.cc b/lily/dot-column.cc
index 1aa0b72..81b8124 100644
--- a/lily/dot-column.cc
+++ b/lily/dot-column.cc
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ Dot_column::calc_positioning_done (SCM smob)
problem.register_configuration (cfg);
for (Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (cfg.begin ());
- i != cfg.end (); i++)
+ i != cfg.end (); ++i)
{
/*
Junkme?
diff --git a/lily/dot-configuration.cc b/lily/dot-configuration.cc
index 940420c..d6c04c5 100644
--- a/lily/dot-configuration.cc
+++ b/lily/dot-configuration.cc
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Dot_configuration::badness () const
{
int t = 0;
for (Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (begin ());
- i != end (); i++)
+ i != end (); ++i)
{
int p = i-first;
int demerit = sqr (p - i-second.pos_) * 2;
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Dot_configuration::print () const
{
printf (dotconf { );
for (Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (begin ());
- i != end (); i++)
+ i != end (); ++i)
printf (%d, , i-first);
printf (}\n);
}
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Dot_configuration::shifted (int k, Direction d) const
if (d 0)
{
for (Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (begin ());
- i != end (); i++)
+ i != end (); ++i)
{
int p = i-first;
if (p == k)
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ Dot_configuration::shifted (int k, Direction d) const
Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (end ());
do
{
- i--;
+ --i;
int p = i-first;
if (p == k)
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ Dot_configuration::x_offset () const
{
Real off = 0.0;
for (Dot_configuration::const_iterator i (begin ());
- i != end (); i++)
+ i != end (); ++i)
off = max (off, problem_-head_skyline_.height ((*i).first));
return off;
diff --git a/lily/note-spacing-engraver.cc b/lily/note-spacing-engraver.cc
index 8cb1b35..c1d2405 100644
--- a/lily/note-spacing-engraver.cc
+++ b/lily/note-spacing-engraver.cc
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void
Note_spacing_engraver::derived_mark () const
{
for (Last_spacing_map::const_iterator i = last_spacings_.begin ();
- i != last_spacings_.end (); i++)
+ i != last_spacings_.end (); ++i)
scm_gc_mark (i-first-self_scm ());
}
diff --git a/lily/skyline.cc b/lily/skyline.cc
index 0250fc0..2a3a369 100644
--- a/lily/skyline.cc
+++ b/lily/skyline.cc
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
static void
print_buildings (listBuilding const b)
{
- for (listBuilding::const_iterator i = b.begin (); i != b.end (); i++)
+ for (listBuilding::const_iterator i = b.begin (); i != b.end (); ++i)
i-print ();
}
@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ Skyline::Skyline (Skyline const src)
/* doesn't a list's copy constructor do this? -- jneem */
for (listBuilding::const_iterator i = src.buildings_.begin ();
- i != src.buildings_.end (); i++)
+ i != src.buildings_.end (); ++i)
{
buildings_.push_back (Building ((*i)));
}
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ void
Skyline::raise (Real r)
{
listBuilding::iterator end = buildings_.end ();
- for (listBuilding::iterator i = buildings_.begin (); i != end; i++)
+ for (listBuilding::iterator i =
Re: Cppcheck reports patch for 2546
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 08:30:50AM +0200, Julien Nabet wrote: Since I don't have a Google account to sign in to http://codereview.appspot.com/, I attached the patch for 2546. Don't hesitate to tell me if it's ok or not. (I attached a link to why prefix is better). Unfortunately we do not accept patches outside of the process discussed here: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/summary-for-experienced-developers Hopefully somebody will offer to shepherd your patch through the process. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Cppcheck reports
Hello
2012/5/17 Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr
I'm not top posting.
Hello,
I just git clone Lilypond project and launched cppcheck (git updated
today).
I thought it could interest you, here are some examples :
[lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594] - [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594]: (style) Same
expression on both sides of '-'
592 if (!follow_beam)
593 {
594 points.push_back (Offset (x0 - x0, staff[dir]));
595 points.push_back (Offset (x1 - x0, staff[dir]));
596 }
[lily/tie-engraver.cc:240]: (performance) Prefer prefix ++/-- operators for
non-primitive types
240 for (; it heads_to_tie_.end (); it++)
241 report_unterminated_tie (*it);
(+ it's safer to use it != heads_to_tie_.end ())
[lily/paper-book.cc:346]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for
'cols'
emptiness
346 if (cols.size ())
347 {
348 Paper_column *col = dynamic_castPaper_column *
(cols.back ());
349 col-set_property (symbol, permission);
350 col-find_prebroken_piece (LEFT)-set_property (symbol,
permission);
351 }
If you're interested, I can send you the full report (since there's no
possibility of attachment), just tell me where I can send it.
Julien.
This need some discussion before tracking an issue, I think - therefore
cc-ing devel...
Marek Klein,
bug squad member
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Cppcheck reports
On 5/18/12 1:42 PM, Marek Klein ma...@gregoriana.sk wrote:
Hello
2012/5/17 Julien Nabet serval2...@yahoo.fr
I'm not top posting.
Hello,
I just git clone Lilypond project and launched cppcheck (git updated
today).
I thought it could interest you, here are some examples :
[lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594] - [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594]: (style) Same
expression on both sides of '-'
592 if (!follow_beam)
593 {
594 points.push_back (Offset (x0 - x0, staff[dir]));
595 points.push_back (Offset (x1 - x0, staff[dir]));
596 }
[lily/tie-engraver.cc:240]: (performance) Prefer prefix ++/-- operators
for
non-primitive types
240 for (; it heads_to_tie_.end (); it++)
241 report_unterminated_tie (*it);
(+ it's safer to use it != heads_to_tie_.end ())
[lily/paper-book.cc:346]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for
'cols'
emptiness
346 if (cols.size ())
347 {
348 Paper_column *col = dynamic_castPaper_column *
(cols.back ());
349 col-set_property (symbol, permission);
350 col-find_prebroken_piece (LEFT)-set_property (symbol,
permission);
351 }
If you're interested, I can send you the full report (since there's no
possibility of attachment), just tell me where I can send it.
Julien.
This need some discussion before tracking an issue, I think - therefore
cc-ing devel...
I think that it would be worth creating an issue, and attaching the output
file from cppcheck, as long as the file is not too long.
At any rate, I'd like to see the output file.
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Cppcheck reports
Thanks for the file, Julien. I have split the warnings into various issues. See issues 2545, 2546, and 2548 through 2554 on the issue tracker. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2545colspec=ID%20Type%2 0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2546colspec=ID%20Type%2 0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary etc. Julien, if you want to fix any of these, I'd be happy to help you get patches reviewed and pushed. Here's instructions on uploading a patch for review: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/commits-and-patches #uploading-a-patch-for-review Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
