* Fixed#8960 ("(debug) Unknown type 'x'." with alias in template class alias)
This commit adds non-template type alias support to the template
simplifier. Only relatively simple type aliases are supported at this
time. More complex types will be added later.
--debug-warnings will show unsupported type aliases.
Type alias support will be removed from the symbol database in the
future. Type alias tests have been removed from the symbol database
tests.
* Add the changes.
* Fix codacy warning.
* Fix travis warnings.
* template simplifier: fix crash on windows
Use right token when searching for template type alias to delete.
* template simplifier: fix a cppcheck warning
* Remove newlines after check(
* Remove unneeded statements after if-statements
As an example, the previous test case
check(
"bool foo(int x) {\n"
" if (x < 0)"
" return true;\n"
" return false;\n"
"}");
is changed to
check("void foo(int x) {\n"
" if (x < 0) {}\n"
"}");
This has basic handling of GUI projects. But further work will be needed to handle addons etc, the plan is that we will be able to run addons from the command line soon.
The unsigned less than zero checker looked for patterns like "<= 0".
Switching to use valueflow improves the checker in a few aspects.
First, it removes false positives where instead of 0, the code is using
0L, 0U, etc. Instead of having to hard code the different variants of 0,
valueflow handles this automatically. This fixes FPs on the form
uint32_t value = 0xFUL;
void f() {
if (value < 0u)
{
value = 0u;
}
}
where 0u was previously not recognized by the checker. This fixes#8836.
Morover, it makes it possible to handle templates properly. In commit
fa076598ad, all warnings inside templates
were made inconclusive, since the checker had no idea if "0" came from
a template parameter or not.
This makes it possible to not warn for the following case which was
reported as a FP in #3233
template<int n> void foo(unsigned int x) {
if (x <= n);
}
foo<0>();
but give a warning for the following case
template<int n> void foo(unsigned int x) {
if (x <= 0);
}
Previously, both these cases gave inconclusive warnings.
Finally, it makes it possible to give warnings for the following code:
void f(unsigned x) {
int y = 0;
if (x <= y) {}
}
Also, previously, the checker for unsigned variables larger than 0, the
checker used the string of the astoperand. This meant that for code like
the following:
void f(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
if (x -y >= 0) {}
}
cppcheck would output
[unsigned-expression-positive.c] (style) Unsigned variable '-' can't be negative so it is unnecessary to test it.
using expressionString() instead gives a better error message
[unsigned-expression-positive.c] (style) Unsigned expression 'x-z' can't be negative so it is unnecessary to test it.
Use `--check-library` for all tests as it was done before.
Re-enable all tests in runtests.sh again.
The regressions where runtests.sh would fail are disabled via "FIXME"
comment in the inline suppression comment.
* Add regression test for #6906
Ticket #6906 was fixed in f65cf220ba.
Add a test to make sure there are no regressions.
* Add regression test for #7284
Ticket #7284 was fixed in 5d1fdf7958.
Add tests to avoid regressions.
This will use the lifetime checker for dangling references. It will find these cases for indirectly assigned reference:
```cpp
int &foo()
{
int s = 0;
int& x = s;
return x;
}
```
This will also fix issue 510 as well:
```cpp
int &f( int k )
{
static int &r = k;
return r;
}
```
As discussed in https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/8931 a regression test is added
to the test/cfg/runtests.sh script to make sure that unmatchedSuppression messages result in an Cppcheck exit code that signals a failure.
On linux systems (like travis) Qt often seems to be built with the option "reduce_relocations" which requires an application using it to specify the option "-fPIC".
IOBYTE
rikardfalkeborn
Sebastian
Daniel Marjamäki
Paul Fultz II
Lauri Nurmi
amai2012