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

[Gilles Caulier]

The noConstructor warnings are all false positive as i can see, or i don't
understand the warning description.

Gilles

2018-05-17 21:59 GMT+02:00 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:

> 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/20180517/046dc4b1/attachment.html>