https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/discussion/
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025, 10:30 Joachim Reichel,
wrote:
> > i think the message could be improved!
> >
> >
> > It should be more like "Ignoring #include at line xxx" that would be a
> lot
> > more understandable
>
> Possibly. You could suggest that on the cppcheck mailinglist (maybe check
> their
>
i think the message could be improved!
It should be more like "Ignoring #include at line xxx" that would be a lot
more understandable
Possibly. You could suggest that on the cppcheck mailinglist (maybe check their
archives if that has been discussed before).
Best regards,
Joachim
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025, 20:37 Joachim Reichel,
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> yes, that's expected as explained in the message from the second
> invocation.
hi - thanks for replying.
> There is no default include path in cppcheck. You can add it explicitly,
> but
> typically you don't want to check th
Hi Richard,
yes, that's expected as explained in the message from the second invocation.
There is no default include path in cppcheck. You can add it explicitly, but
typically you don't want to check the standard library headers. And if you try
it, you'll see that it will check only a subset o
Package: cppcheck
Version: 2.10-2
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: richard.lewis.deb...@googlemail.com
Dear Maintainer,
Is it expected that cppcheck fails to find any standard include files?
$ cat foo.c
#include
void main(void){}
$ cppcheck --enable=all foo.c
nofile:0:0: information: Cppcheck ca
6 matches
Mail list logo
