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

Moved CheckOther::checkPassByReference to normal checking

This commit is contained in:
Daniel Marjamäki 2019-03-06 20:59:45 +01:00
parent 9d5f672dbc
commit f20936ed8a
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
lib/checkother.h
View File

@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ public:
checkOther.checkPipeParameterSize(); checkOther.checkPipeParameterSize();
checkOther.checkRedundantCopy(); checkOther.checkRedundantCopy();
checkOther.clarifyCalculation(); checkOther.clarifyCalculation();
checkOther.checkPassByReference();
} }
/** @brief Run checks against the simplified token list */ /** @brief Run checks against the simplified token list */
@ -96,7 +97,6 @@ public:
// Checks // Checks
checkOther.clarifyStatement(); checkOther.clarifyStatement();
checkOther.checkPassByReference();
checkOther.checkCastIntToCharAndBack(); checkOther.checkCastIntToCharAndBack();
checkOther.checkMisusedScopedObject(); checkOther.checkMisusedScopedObject();

2
test/testother.cpp
View File

@ -3335,7 +3335,7 @@ private:
check("void f(char c) {\n" check("void f(char c) {\n"
" printf(\"%i\", 1 + 1 ? 1 : 2);\n" // "1+1" is simplified away " printf(\"%i\", 1 + 1 ? 1 : 2);\n" // "1+1" is simplified away
"}",0,false,false,false); "}",0,false,false,false);
TODO_ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:2]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '+' and '?'.\n", "", errout.str()); // TODO: Is that really necessary, or is this pattern too unlikely? ASSERT_EQUALS("[test.cpp:2]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '+' and '?'.\n", errout.str());
check("void f() {\n" check("void f() {\n"
" std::cout << x << 1 ? 2 : 3;\n" " std::cout << x << 1 ? 2 : 3;\n"