Daniel Marjamäki

Hi, as far as I remember misra.py covers amendments 1 & 2. But not amendments 3 & 4. I.e. rules 1.4 and 1.5 are missing. We have not actively removed or crippled the functionality in misra.py. When it said that MISRA C:2012 support was complete in misra.py it meant that we had implemented checkers for all rules. It did not mean that each checker would catch all violations. We have made lots of improvements in the checkers in Cppcheck Premium it has substantially better coverage of many rules. I am...

Hi, as far as I remember misra.py covers amendments 1 & 2. But not amendments 3 & 4. I.e. rules 1.4 and 1.5 are missing. We have not actively removed or crippled the functionality in misra.py. When it said that MISRA C:2012 support was complete it meant that we had implemented checkers for all rules. It did not mean that each checker would catch all violations. We have made lots of improvements in the checkers in Cppcheck Premium it has substantially better coverage of many rules. I am not against...

I am thinking about moving the open source cppcheck-related repos. my idea was to move from danmar/cppcheck to some cppcheck/cppcheck path. however owner "cppcheck" seems to be taken already. Anyway the repos will be owned by an organisation instead.. https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/transferring-a-repository before I do it.. does anybode envision some particular problems.

It is much cleaner to construct the variable with the correct type instead of using a static_cast, +1 I also see such somewhat related code now and then: auto s = std::string{"hello"};

so as I read it we think that example 2 and example 3 are OK. I believe that example 1 is discussible. There may be situations where auto is preferable and then there are situations where it would be better to remove the cast and not use auto. Imho, the downsides of the auto+cast is that it's extra code and it can hide compiler warnings that may point out real bugs.

It is much cleaner to construct the variable with the correct type instead of using a static_cast, +1 casts can hide compiler warnings about real bugs. I also see such somewhat related code now and then: auto s = std::string{"hello"};

Cppcheck-2.20.0

I feel that auto is overused in cppcheck. And would like to have a little discussion about it. I don't want that we just mechanically replace types with auto whenever possible. Can we agree on when it is OK to use it. Example 1: Cast result assigned to variable: const auto t = static_cast<char>(type); I am not convinced that auto is a good idea if the typename is short and simple. It does not save any bytes to write auto here. If we just save 2-3 bytes by writing auto I still suggest we should write...