Added new suppress comments:
- `cppcheck-suppress-begin` and `cppcheck-suppress-end` to remove blocks
of suppression
- `cppcheck-suppress-file` to remove suppression at file level
The suppressions do not interfere with each others. For example, all the
suppressions are matched in the following code:
```c
// cppcheck-suppress-file uninitvar
void f() {
int a;
// cppcheck-suppress-begin uninitvar
// cppcheck-suppress uninitvar
a++;
// cppcheck-suppress-end uninitvar
}
```
Tickets:
https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/11902https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/8528
Currently the `AddonInfo` is generated and discarded on each addon
invocation. This leads to an unnecessary process invocation for each
addon on each file.
Also if an addon is completely broken we will still perform the whole
analysis only for it to be failed at the end so we should bail out early
if we know it doesn't work at all.
I got error messages while building `cppcheck 2.12.0` for RISC-V Arch
Linux:
```
Testing Complete
Number of tests: 4420
Number of todos: 331
Tests failed: 2
/usr/src/debug/cppcheck/cppcheck/test/testcondition.cpp:4501(TestCondition::alwaysTrue): Assertion failed.
Expected:
[test.cpp:6]: (style) Condition 'o[1]=='\0'' is always false\n
Actual:
[test.cpp:4] -> [test.cpp:6]: (style) Condition 'o[1]=='\0'' is always false\n
_____
/usr/src/debug/cppcheck/cppcheck/test/testcondition.cpp:5014(TestCondition::alwaysTrueContainer): Assertion failed.
Expected:
[test.cpp:5]: (style) Condition 'buffer.back()=='\0'' is always false\n
Actual:
[test.cpp:3] -> [test.cpp:5]: (style) Condition 'buffer.back()=='\0'' is always false\n
```
I found out the reason is that the testcases were designed for
x86/x86_64 or other `signed char` platforms (i.e. default character type
is `signed char` ), whereareas RISC-V is an `unsigned char` platform,
which causes different behavior in
`lib/valueflow.cpp:valueFlowImpossibleValues`. I'm not sure whether this
error leads from a functional bug, so if you have a better approach to
fix it, please let me know.
Maybe you could reproduce this error on x86_64 platform by setting
`defaultSign = 'u';` in `Platform::set(Type t)`.
The name was misleading as it was actually a `long long` and also if we
ever move to an (optional) 128-bit value it wouldn't even less fitting.
We should name it to match our alias type.
This is a step onto leveraging the `ThreadExecutor` implementation for
`ProcessExecutor` which is a follow-up to #4870. We need to have the
proper test coverage and the existing implementations working as
expected before we move to the shared code.
Fixes:
- added `--showtime=` tests for all executor implementations
- only print `--showtime=summary` once at the end
- prevents `--showtime=` by multiple threads to be written at the same
time - essentially breaking the output
- reset the timer results before each test
- deprecated `top5` in favor of `top5_file`
- fixed printing for all executors except `ProcessExecutor`
Swasti Shrivastava
Oliver Stöneberg
chrchr-github
orbitcowboy
Daniel Marjamäki
Johan Bertrand
moui0
Paul Fultz II
andymacg