Re: Cppcheck: Reduction of False Positives: Manual Approach

[slacka <lukebenes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The goal of my manual approach was to configure Cppcheck to minimize false
positives. In doing so, I was forced to only scan the Linux code base, as
only Linux has Linux system headers and does not have Window's or BSD's...
So I am not surprised that some valid issues were not reported. 

There are many knobs I could tweak. For example, since my last post, I
discovered I could remove the "-DNDEBUG" to scan the debug code path. I
could also remove the "-j 4" option to allow Cppcheck to scan for unused
functions.  I don't know what is most useful, and what valid issues were not
being reported.  This is why I have asked the ML for feedback. 

So if a dev wants give me some guidance, I could continue tweaking, or as
you suggested, we could run 2 reports. 
1) a limited Linux only scan with few false positives (ala my manual
approach), and 
2) a general scan with many false positives (the current Cppcheck Report).  

If you try to limit the false positives with include locations without also
limiting configuration, Cppcheck gets overloaded and generates tens of
thousands of "too many configuration" errors. 



--
Sent from: http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/Dev-f1639786.html
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice