I was doing a bit of research into cppcheck [1] to see if it might be worth running as a linter (alongside eslint, flake8 etc). More discussion in bug 1370292 [2]. I ran it against the entire tree [3] and got these results: https://bug1370292.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8874498
So far it looks like the false positive rate is too high to warrant standing up a job in CI. It seems it would cause more frustration than it's worth. But there are likely some legit errors in there, so please take a quick look to see if any apply to your module. Feel free to comment over in bug 1370292 if you have opinions one way or the other on standing this up as a task. Barring a claim that it would be useful, I'll be WONTFIXing that bug in a bit. -Andrew [1] http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/ [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1370292 [3] cppcheck $(sed -e 's/^/-i/' tools/rewriting/ThirdPartyPaths.txt) -ithird_party . 2> errors.txt _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
