BIND 10 #2278: Errors from cppcheck 1.56

[BIND 10 Development]

#2278: Errors from cppcheck 1.56
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  UnAssigned
  vorner                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:         |             Milestone:
  defect                             |  Sprint-20121009
                   Priority:         |            Resolution:
  medium                             |             Sensitive:  0
                  Component:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
  Unclassified                       |  Estimated Difficulty:  6
                   Keywords:         |           Total Hours:  0
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jelte):

 * owner:  jelte => UnAssigned
 * status:  assigned => reviewing


Comment:

 Ready for review.

 There were a few real errors in there; mainly a destructor where the ~ was
 forgotten (making it a constructor...), and a few unused variables.

 Less bad problems where use of an obsolete posix call (ctime(), in
 message.cc, replaced it with strftime).

 Thirdly, there are also a number of warnings about some preprocessor
 directives (IPV6_MTU e.g.), not too sure what to do about them. But since
 they are not errors, at least the test would succeed again with the merger
 of this branch, if we upgrade to 1.56.

 I also added two suppressions (yes, in cppcheck-suppress.lst);

 - eraseDereference. This is a known false positive which is fixed in the
 current development version of cppcheck
 - unusedFunction. Was less sure about this one, but we suddenly get a LOT
 of unused function errors. I've checked most of them, and some are
 somewhat false positives as well (in the case of templates, usually), and
 some are technically true, but probably hard to tell for cppcheck
 (PyINIT_XXX for instance). The latter could be 'fixed' by adding more
 headers, or early declarations. But neither are needed for the code to
 work, and I did not really want to put 50 cppcheck-suppress comments in
 non-test source code, so I opted to suppress them for now.

 Both of these should of course be checked and possibly removed if we
 upgrade to > 1.56. Added a comment in the suppress file that says this.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2278#comment:5>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development