Cppcheck: Reduction of False Positives: Manual Approach

Maarten Hoes hoes.maarten at gmail.com
Sun Sep 30 14:20:51 UTC 2018


On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 5:20 AM Luke Benes <lukebenes at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Maarten,
> Thanks for your suggestion here and your earlier contributions to the
> Cppcheck Report. I agree that we should create the include file
> dynamically. However the approach used by your script seems like overkill.
> Cppcheck already finds that quoted includes like
> #include "GraphicExportFilter.hxx"
> .
> Also when there seems to have been a coding style that all <> includes
> outside of /inc folders should be defined by their relative path. Cppcheck
> only complains about 4 missing includes that do not follow this
> pattern.(see my earlier email on oddball includes).
> Unless, I'm missing something, I still prefer this approach:
> $ find . -type d \( -name "inc" -o -name "include" \) |sort > inc.txt
> inc.txt only has ~200 entries, where as  /tmp/tmpfile.txt has ~1,800 after
> sorting it.
> -Luke

I was about to speak of the supposedly preferred approach that I took, for
the reasons that my approach :

1.) Does not depend on the existence of and/or adherence to any
customs/practices/coding styles, which can and do change over time, or are
simply overlooked, causing errors that people will have to correct manually
or even cause silent failure that no-one notices.
2.) Is fully dynamic, and does not have any paths 'hard-coded' into the
script, which one would have to adjust if in the future the paths/names
change. I already am worried about the fact that the approach uses
hard-coded defines (-DFOO/-UBAR) on the commandline instead of determining
them dynamically, but I currently see no way to do this differently, so I
guess that has to stay for now. Also, I guess the chance that these defines
change over time is far less likely than the chance that directory names
and locations change.

But then I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and made the
necessary changes to the cppcheck-report script, and guess what ? Apart
from approach differences, your version completed in an acceptable
execution time, whereas my approach took *ages* (after 40 minutes cppcheck
was still only about 1% completed, after which I aborted the attempt).

As of now, I cannot tell what causes this massive difference in execution
time, but the only visible difference in cppcheck output was this :

my version: Checking basctl/source/basicide/basides1.cxx:
your version: Checking basctl/source/basicide/basides1.cxx ...

Obvious things: 'my version' listed the -D in the output, your's did not.
'My version' lists the defines *twice* (which can't be good).

I don't know what's going on here.

- Maarten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20180930/58a67c41/attachment.html>

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list