On 30/09/2018 15:16, Maarten Hoes wrote:
sberg wrote
I'm not sure how useful this is, overall. Apparently, Cppcheck is run
on .cxx files without knowledge of the specific -I, -D, etc. compiler
switches that our build system would pass to the compiler for a given
.cxx file. That will always lead to issues (Cppcheck not finding an
including, or even finding the wrong include if there is include files
with identical names in different dirs?, or producing false positives
because it mis-guesses about some -D macro setting) unless we restrict
our build system to compile all files with the exact same set of
compiler switches---something I don't see us moving towards.
Actually, these are all good points. I hadn't even considered these yet, I
went straight into 'oh-goody-shell-scripting-time!' mode. Sorry for that ;-)
Having said that, I personally do think it might reduce the noise of the
cppcheck report if cppcheck could at least be told :
I personally think a static analysis tooling with even only a single
false positive caused by inexact invocation of the tooling (i.e., not
passing the same command line switches as are passed to the real
compiler) would be just a waste of time (and I personally wouldn't even
bother looking at the results then). Your mileage may vary---widely
even---of course. And I surely don't want to kill any enthusiasm and
effort with this, just put it into perspective.
And from the other parts of this thread I see a move to that already
existing gbuild-to-ide thing, which sounds very promising.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
