Mass filing of clang warnings

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at
Fri Mar 13 15:48:09 CET 2015

Werner Koch:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:12, hans at said:
>> In my experience with cppcheck, it will better understand the code if that
>> code does not include bits that cppcheck is confused by. I have changed little
>> things in response to cppcheck warnings, and that then made cppcheck find real
> I showed a real standard coding pattern.  If cppcheck is not able to
> detect this very basic technique it produces too many false positives.
> Clobbering the code with annotations for such a thing is not going to
> work.

I'm more interested in cppcheck, I don't know much about clang so I'm not
going to comment on its results.  If you look back at my original post about
cppcheck, it seems to me that you were unwilling to accept trivial changes to
placate cppcheck:

That's the kind of stuff that I'm talking about.  The key point I'm talking
about is not about whether the code that triggers the warning is correct or
not.  It is about making it correct AND simple enough for cppcheck to
understand.  That last point is what I'm discussing.


PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D  8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list