Joachim Reichel <joachim.reic...@posteo.de> writes: > Now the tricky question: how frequent/annoying are these regressions > with large code bases, i.e., with existing real-world code? Is version > 2.3 a net improvement over version 2.2? Should we keep 2.3 out of > testing for now (and possibly out of the upcoming release)?
2.3 was a net improvement for me, although the code base on which I've tested it is not all that large (about 35K lines including comments). I think it's fine to move to 2.3 in the upcoming release. This falls within the "normal" level of cppcheck false positives for me. (I should retest some of my previous false positives that I've been suppressing and see if others are fixed; they probably are.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
