* use already cached name token rather than recalculating it
multiple times
* cache end of template parameters token and use it rather than
recalculating it multiple times
* remove unnecessary end of template token and name token checks
* remove function parameter that is already contained in another
parameter
* valueflow: remove unused variable known
since e4677ae640 will trigger :
lib/valueflow.cpp:506:20: warning: unused variable 'known' [-Wunused-variable]
const bool known = (parent->astOperand1()->hasKnownValue() ||
* templatesimplifier: cleanup
since 48c960f56c showing:
lib/templatesimplifier.h:279:16: warning: private field 'mTokenizer' is not used
[-Wunused-private-field]
Tokenizer *mTokenizer;
* split CheckNullPointer::arithmeticError() into
* CheckNullPointer::pointerArithmeticError() and
* CheckNullPointer::redundantConditionWarning()
* Additional errorlist entry:
```XML
<error id="nullPointerArithmeticRedundantCheck"
severity="warning"
msg="Either the condition is redundant or there is pointer arithmetic with NULL pointer."
verbose="Either the condition is redundant or there is pointer arithmetic with NULL pointer." cwe="682"/>
```
This fixes issue in:
```cpp
void f()
{
char stack[512];
RGNDATA *data;
if (data_size > sizeof (stack))
data = malloc (data_size);
else
data = (RGNDATA *)stack;
if ((char *)data != stack)
free (data); // <- data is not stack
}
```
It seems the `ProgramMemory` can't handle two known values(such as int and tok) together. So instead `ValueFlowAfterAssign` runs `ValueFlowForward` with tok values and then runs it with the other values.
I sometimes find myself wondering which test cases I have broken when I fiddle with some check (since I then can try running these specific tests in the debugger, or make a small change and see if the tests pass). This PR adds the testclass and the test case names to the file and line number. I took special care to cover the case where an assert would be placed directly in the ```run()```-function, i.e., not inside a test case (from what I could see, no such case exists). If there is no need to handle this case, the code can be simplified (there wouldn't be need for the ```teardownTest()```-function for example).
The exact format for how to print the test name is very much up for discussion.
Daniel Marjamäki
amai2012
IOBYTE
amai2012
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón
ivangalkin
Paul Fultz II
Oliver Schode
rikardfalkeborn
orbitcowboy
Sebastian