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

[Gilles Caulier]

Look also the clang static analyzer reports. I fixed 90% of all entries,
but some items still obscur. These one are the most important :

https://www.digikam.org/reports/clang/master/report-777c92.html#EndPath

https://www.digikam.org/reports/clang/master/report-f4c72d.html#EndPath

Gilles

2018-05-17 22:02 GMT+02:00 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:

> As i can see too, the noCopyConstructor are mostly false positive,
> excepted for some cases where this king of constructor must be explicit and
> not delegate to the compiler. There are a lots of reports, and to review
> all will take a while.
>
> Gilles
>
> 2018-05-17 22:00 GMT+02:00 Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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-exp
>>> licit-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/20180517/24e9be00/attachment.html>