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

Improve 'Use x.empty() instead of x.size() for emptiness' warning. 

Improve the performance warning message as discussed at dev-forum:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/cppcheck/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192#p926
This commit is contained in:
Kimmo Varis 2010-12-04 10:15:48 +02:00
parent 8369d0ddd6
commit d14b5039ce
2 changed files with 9 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
lib/checkstl.cpp
View File

@ -807,12 +807,13 @@ void CheckStl::size()
void CheckStl::sizeError(const Token *tok)
{
const std::string varname(tok ? tok->str().c_str() : "list");
const bool verbose(_settings ? _settings->_verbose : true);
reportError(tok, Severity::performance, "stlSize", "Use " + varname + ".empty() instead of " + varname + ".size() to guarantee fast code." + (verbose ? " size() can take linear time but empty() is guaranteed to take constant time." : ""));
reportError(tok, Severity::performance, "stlSize",
"Possible inefficient checking for '" + varname + "' emptiness.\n"
"Using " + varname + ".empty() instead of " + varname + ".size() can be faster. " +
varname + ".size() can take linear time but " + varname + ".empty() is "
"guaranteed to take constant time.");
}
void CheckStl::redundantCondition()
{
const char pattern[] = "if ( %var% . find ( %any% ) != %var% . end ( ) ) "

8
test/teststl.cpp
View File

@ -1008,28 +1008,28 @@ private:
" std::list<int> x;\n"
" if (x.size() == 0) {}\n"
"}\n");
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Use x.empty() instead of x.size() to guarantee fast code.\n", errout.str());
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for 'x' emptiness.\n", errout.str());
check("void f()\n"
"{\n"
" std::list<int> x;\n"
" if (x.size() != 0) {}\n"
"}\n");
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Use x.empty() instead of x.size() to guarantee fast code.\n", errout.str());
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for 'x' emptiness.\n", errout.str());
check("void f()\n"
"{\n"
" std::list<int> x;\n"
" if (x.size() > 0) {}\n"
"}\n");
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Use x.empty() instead of x.size() to guarantee fast code.\n", errout.str());
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for 'x' emptiness.\n", errout.str());
check("void f()\n"
"{\n"
" std::list<int> x;\n"
" if (x.size()) {}\n"
"}\n");
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Use x.empty() instead of x.size() to guarantee fast code.\n", errout.str());
ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:4]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for 'x' emptiness.\n", errout.str());
check("void f()\n"
"{\n"