coverity warnings update, < 150, 0.04 density

[Caolán McNamara]

On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 21:48 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 03.11.2014 16:24, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> 
> > 705391 Inferred misuse of enum really bugs me.
> > xmloff/source/transform/MergeElemTContext.cxx:235 where
> > XML_ATACTION_MOVE_FROM_ELEM_RNG2ISO_DATETIME is from a completely
> > different enum than all the other cases. It looks completely bogus, but
> > I don't know if it should be some other condition or if that case
> > belongs to another switch.
> > 
> 
> that was a nasty case, fixed in commit
> 76dce95eed6892d729fbea2b990911edd82ded82

Excellent, that one was super-bugging me. FWIW that leaves just one
MIXED_ENUM warning left. 705369 where XML_TOK_ENCODING in
dbaccess/source/filter/xml/xmlDataSourceInfo.cxx:67 is also from an
utterly different enum from the rest of the cases :-(

C.

p.s. I want to leave 982918, 983056 and 1250404 *untriaged* or now to
find out if I have the right inline coverity markup to automark false
positives as intentional if the code is sent to a different coverity
instance than the public one.