BIND 10 #2650: Errors from cppcheck 1.58
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Thu Feb 7 05:14:37 UTC 2013
#2650: Errors from cppcheck 1.58
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vorner | Owner: jelte
Type: defect | Status:
Priority: medium | reviewing
Component: Unclassified | Milestone:
Keywords: | Sprint-20130219
Sensitive: 0 | Resolution:
Sub-Project: DNS | CVSS Scoring:
Estimated Difficulty: 3 | Defect Severity: N/A
Total Hours: 0 | Feature Depending on Ticket:
| Add Hours to Ticket: 0
| Internal?: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by muks):
* owner: muks => jelte
Comment:
Replying to [comment:6 jelte]:
> The changes look OK.
>
> But I'm not sure whether we shouldn't suppress the false positives;
Obviously we should suppress as little as possible, but what is the
purpose of the ticket here, to fix any real problems that cppcheck points
out or to make sure 'make cppcheck' does not fail on systems that are more
up-to-date?
The purpose is definitely to check that our code is correct.
If this is indeed a cppcheck regression, this could be something that may
get fixed in the next update or two (as it's very visible), so it may be
worth waiting rather than adding suppressions.
I tried to make a cppcheck testcase to send to its authors, but it isn't
failing for my test code:
{{{
class A {
public:
A(int) {}
class B;
};
class A::B {
public:
B(int) {
}
};
}}}
I don't know if its authors would be too happy to go through BIND 10 code
to check this.
> (btw I have checked with the current -dev version; it still has the
false positives, and yet more errors)
>
> note that for 1.56 we actuall did add some (global) suppressions. At
some point we do need to remove them :)
Nod. We should keep removing suppressions when possible.
--
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2650#comment:7>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list