removed SuppressionList::Suppression::NO_LINE#8429
Conversation
|
This is mostly likely the reason why lines are signed in Cppcheck but unsigned in simplecpp. This will be resolved in a follow-up. |
firewave
force-pushed
the
suppr-no-line
branch
5 times, most recently
from
0e43d67 to
c6cd63b
Compare
|
The suppressions were using `-1` as indication that no line is used but in simplecpp `0` was used for that.
| if (s2.errorId == "unmatchedSuppression") { // TODO: handle unmatchedPolyspaceSuppression? | ||
| if ((s2.fileName.empty() || s2.fileName == "*" || s2.fileName == s.fileName) && | ||
| (s2.lineNumber == SuppressionList::Suppression::NO_LINE || s2.lineNumber == s.lineNumber)) { | ||
| (s2.lineNumber == 0 || s2.lineNumber == s.lineNumber)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't feel that we should have magic number 0 to mean "NO LINE".
A constant should be used that clearly says "no line".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have no done that anywhere in the code - simplecpp or Cppcheck.
If we would add that it would need to be added in simplecpp but that might lead to having to include simplecpp.h in every file and that is certainly undesirable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can keep the constant SuppressionList::Suppression::NO_LINE but change its value from -1 to 0.
The constant is meant to be used on suppressions not tokens.
Maybe simplecpp should have some "no line" constant also. Off the top of my head I am unsure if tokens from simplecpp can have "no line"?
2 participants
The suppressions were using
-1as indication that no line is used but in simplecpp0is used for that.