https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119323
Robert Dubner <rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Assignee|jklowden at gcc dot gnu.org |rdubner at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Robert Dubner <rdubner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This was an interesting exercise.
I found cppcheck to be quirky and idiosyncratic. Version 1.7 gives results
that are different from Version 1.17. There are a number of what I think are
false positives, in that I couldn't figure out how to make them go away. Hence
I have some inline suppression comments.
cppcheck was a bit snide about using ++/-- prefix notation for iterators rather
than the postfix notation, giving the argument that the prefix notation
generates more efficient code.
That made an eyebrow go up. I suppose that there still might be computers slow
enough that when using a compiler stupid enough to not know about that
particular optimization could result in code that runs "slower", where "slower"
means using an atomic clock and an laser interferometer to detect the
difference. But I doubt it.
Given that I believe the other issues in this PR have been addressed and since
using my recipe results in no warnings, I am closing this out.
David, thanks very much for your help getting me off the ground with cppcheck.
