walkero
/
cppcheck
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

writing rules: more tweaks

This commit is contained in:
Daniel Marjamäki 2010-12-30 10:11:33 +01:00
parent 2e61736c73
commit 19c7550ae0
2 changed files with 41 additions and 53 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
man/writing-rules-1.docbook
View File

@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
"http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd"> "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd">
<article> <article>
<articleinfo> <articleinfo>
<title>Writing Cppcheck rules - Part 1</title> <title>Writing Cppcheck rules</title>
<subtitle>Part 1 - Getting started</subtitle>
<author> <author>
<firstname>Daniel</firstname> <firstname>Daniel</firstname>

90
man/writing-rules-2.docbook
View File

@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
"http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd"> "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.5/docbookx.dtd">
<article> <article>
<articleinfo> <articleinfo>
<title>Writing Cppcheck rules - Part 2</title> <title>Writing Cppcheck rules</title>
<subtitle>Part 2 - The Cppcheck data representation</subtitle>
<author> <author>
<firstname>Daniel</firstname> <firstname>Daniel</firstname>
@ -49,31 +51,37 @@
variable ids (Cppcheck gives each variable a unique id). You can ignore variable ids (Cppcheck gives each variable a unique id). You can ignore
these if you only plan to write rules with regular expressions, you can't these if you only plan to write rules with regular expressions, you can't
use variable ids with regular expressions.</para> use variable ids with regular expressions.</para>
<para>In general, I will use the <literal>--rule=.+</literal> output in
this article because it is more compact.</para>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
<title>Simplifications</title> <title>Some of the simplifications</title>
<para>This is not intended to be a complete reference for all <para>The data is simplified in many ways. The intention with the
simplifications. It is mostly intended to show that the data is simplified simplifications is to remove all information that the rules don't
in many ways.</para> use.</para>
<para>The intention with the simplifications is to remove all information <para>The best way to see what simplifications there are is to look at the
that the rules don't use.</para> doxygen documentation for the Tokenizer. Some developer information such
as doxygen output is available online at
http://cppcheck.sf.net/devinfo.html</para>
<section> <section>
<title>Preprocessing (Preprocessor)</title> <title>Preprocessing</title>
<para>The Cppcheck data is preprocessed. There are no comments, #define, <para>The Cppcheck data is preprocessed. There are no comments, #define,
#include, etc.</para> #include, etc.</para>
<para>Original source code:</para>
<programlisting>#define SIZE 123 <programlisting>#define SIZE 123
char a[SIZE];</programlisting> char a[SIZE];</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The Cppcheck data for that is:</para>
<programlisting>1: <programlisting> char a [ 123 ] ;</programlisting>
2: char a@1 [ 123 ] ;</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -84,10 +92,9 @@ char a[SIZE];</programlisting>
<programlisting>typedef char s8; <programlisting>typedef char s8;
s8 x;</programlisting> s8 x;</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The Cppcheck data for that is:</para>
<programlisting>1: ; <programlisting> ; char x ;</programlisting>
2: char x@1 ;</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -95,11 +102,7 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
<para>Calculations are simplified.</para> <para>Calculations are simplified.</para>
<programlisting>int a[10 + 4];</programlisting> <programlisting>int a[10 + 4]; =&gt; int a [ 14 ] ;</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para>
<programlisting>1: int a@1 [ 14 ] ;</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -112,11 +115,10 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
declared at a time. The initialization is also broken out into a declared at a time. The initialization is also broken out into a
separate statement.</para> separate statement.</para>
<programlisting>int *a=0, b=2;</programlisting> <programlisting>int *a=0, b=2; =&gt; int * a ; a = 0 ; int b ; b = 2 ;</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>This is even done in the global scope. Even though that is
invalid in C/C++.</para>
<programlisting>1: int * a@1 ; a@1 = 0 ; int b@2 ; b@2 = 2 ;</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -132,7 +134,7 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
array[x + 2] = 0; array[x + 2] = 0;
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The <literal>--debug</literal> output for that is:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting>1: void f ( )
2: { 2: {
@ -156,7 +158,7 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
free(b); free(b);
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The <literal>--debug</literal> output for that is:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting>1: void f ( )
2: { 2: {
@ -174,15 +176,10 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
<title>Braces in if/for/while-body <title>Braces in if/for/while-body
(Tokenizer::simplifyIfAddBraces)</title> (Tokenizer::simplifyIfAddBraces)</title>
<para>There are always braces in if/for/while bodies.</para> <para>Cppcheck makes sure that there are always braces in if/for/while
bodies.</para>
<programlisting> if (x) <programlisting>if (x) f1(); =&gt; if ( x ) { f1 ( ) ; }</programlisting>
f1();</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para>
<programlisting>1: if ( x ) {
2: f1 ( ) ; }</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -199,7 +196,7 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
f2(); f2();
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The <literal>--debug</literal> output:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( int x@1 ) <programlisting>1: void f ( int x@1 )
2: { 2: {
@ -223,14 +220,9 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
} }
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>Debug output:</para> <para>The Cppcheck data is:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting> void f ( ) { { f1 ( ) ; } }</programlisting>
2: {
3: {
4: f1 ( ) ;
5: }
6: }</programlisting>
<para>Another example:</para> <para>Another example:</para>
@ -243,12 +235,7 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
<para>The debug output:</para> <para>The debug output:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting> void f ( ) { }</programlisting>
2: {
3:
4:
5:
6: }</programlisting>
</section> </section>
<section> <section>
@ -265,7 +252,8 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
} }
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>The "x = f1()" is broken out. Debug output:</para> <para>The "x = f1()" is broken out. The <literal>--debug</literal>
output:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting>1: void f ( )
2: { 2: {
@ -285,7 +273,8 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
} }
}</programlisting> }</programlisting>
<para>The "x = f1()" is broken out twice. Debug output:</para> <para>The "x = f1()" is broken out twice. The
<literal>--debug</literal> output:</para>
<programlisting>1: void f ( ) <programlisting>1: void f ( )
2: { 2: {
@ -295,9 +284,6 @@ s8 x;</programlisting>
5: 5:
6: } 6: }
7: }</programlisting> 7: }</programlisting>
<para>An interesting thing here is that "f2 ( ) ;" is written on line
5. But the "x@1 = f1 ( ) ;" after it is written on line 4.</para>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>