cppcheck warnings... Mostly fixed, but not few one...

[Gilles Caulier]

Look also the noExplicitConstructor entries :

https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/

Currently, with Krazy static analyzer, i disable the warnings, and all
re-appear with cppcheck.

This is a tedious problem. Try to force a missing explicit constructor, as :

https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/93.html#line-73

https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/93.html#line-89

>From Face Management code, and you will see a lots of errors.

Typically, the right constructor choice is delegate to the compiler, and
the state at run time can be undefined. This is especially the case for
contructor with one argument or more than one but with 2nd, 3rd, etc...
using default values.

I already fixed some simple case, but it's the hell to apply fix
everywhere, and i'm sure that side effect are introduced without explicit
specifier.

More details here :

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/121162/what-does-the-explicit-keyword-mean

Gilles

2018-05-17 19:19 GMT+02:00 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> I very well advanced with cppcheck static analyzer reports review, and i
> fixed around 300 entries since 2 weeks...
>
> But, as usual, the mostly difficult task is always at end, and the last
> reports sound like... special...
>
> Look this one :
>
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/27.html#line-195
>
> If we have really an error here, digiKam will crash very quickly when an
> image is open with DImg container. A false positive ?
>
> And what's about these 4 entries about equality operator :
>
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/17.html#line-90
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/48.html#line-179
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/83.html#line-55
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/94.html#line-531
>
> And definitively, i lost with these one :
>
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/51.html#line-635
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/67.html#line-56
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/70.html#line-185
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/70.html#line-188
> https://www.digikam.org/reports/cppcheck/master/70.html#line-191
>
> Where these virtual calls appears in source code ?
>
> Any tips, viewpoints, and guidance ?
>
> Best
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-devel/attachments/20180517/133603d8/attachment.html>