Re: Cppcheck: Reduction of False Positives: Manual Approach

[Jan-Marek Glogowski <glogow@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Luke,

Am October 25, 2018 12:40:33 AM UTC schrieb Luke Benes <lukebenes@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>In my first attempt to improve the quality of the cppcheck reports, 
>Tamás Zolnai pointed out that including every possible header resulted
>in some valid warnings not being reported.

[snip]

>It seems many valid variableScope warnings are still being omitted. I'm
>still looking into that. Are there any other categories of valid errors
>that are missing? Specific examples would be helpful. 
>
>Overall, does this report have a higher signal-to-noise ratio than our
>current weekly report?

No idea, you're the expert here - probably that's easier to evaluate in comparison to your original, even shorter report.

Why not have two reports? If your final report has much less false positives and probably even generally with a higher error severity (variableScope normally doesn't indicate an error, can it?), then people can concentrate on these first.

Now I don't know how long it takes to generate them, but one can still toggle between them.

Jan-Marek
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice