Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Introducing the "Debian's Automated Code Analysis" (DACA) project
Posted Dec 16, 2010 23:20 UTC (Thu) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 0:24 UTC (Fri) by naoliv (subscriber, #21066)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 1:37 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 4:40 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
Using experimental is not very common though (neither among developers nor among users), since it's not a complete distribution (which unstable is), only a partial repository (if it was a complete distribution it wouldn't be possible to cherry pick from experimental, because of dependencies).
The fastest way to ensure that new versions of cppcheck gets integrated in unstable at a timely manner is to help get Debian 6.0 out of the door, so if you feel like you can help fix any of the open RC-bugs, please do.
Of course, playing the Devil's Advocate it's likely that extensive testing of the packages in the archive with cppcheck might actually increase the number of RC bugs, in case it uncovers a lot of severe bugs. But that's flawed reasoning...
Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:37 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Personally, I don't give a rats ass about the stable releases, and would rather use a continuously updated (but tested) set of packages than an unchanging one. But I have actually met people who use stable on their servers and appreciate what it is.
Project management is full of compromises.
Posted Dec 17, 2010 0:30 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
FWIW, cppcheck 1.46 was release 2 days ago.
Also, Debian is in freeze pending the upcoming 6.0 release.
Posted Dec 17, 2010 1:07 UTC (Fri) by xxiao (subscriber, #9631)
Posted Dec 18, 2010 17:25 UTC (Sat) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 1:27 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 4:31 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
"cppcheck is 2 releases old in debian(months old) and they're gonna use it to check the packages? It's probably better to start maintaining it better then."
While my interpretation of your statement was hyperbole, you have to admit that your comment was borderline trollish.
Instead of questioning the use of anything less than the latest release of cppcheck (if you look at the release date, I think that you'll find that even cppcheck 1.45 was released after Debian was frozen), why not simply state that "There's now an even newer and better version of cppcheck available from upstream" or similar.
And, as another poster already said, I'm sure any effort to help packaging it for experimental or for that matter to fix the cppcheck related bugs in BTS would be appreciated.
Posted Dec 20, 2010 19:41 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Posted Dec 22, 2010 10:40 UTC (Wed) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)
Posted Dec 22, 2010 17:05 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
I was just talking about the trend or set who expect currentness, almost implicitly.
So you aren't actually disagreeing with me at all.
Posted Dec 17, 2010 3:46 UTC (Fri) by geissert (subscriber, #61258)
"This report was generated on Thu, 16 Dec 2010 04:03:51 +0000, based on results by cppcheck 1.46"
Posted Dec 17, 2010 7:42 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 12:44 UTC (Fri) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497)
Any chances of having the filenames + line numbers be actual hyperlinks to the source code, for a convenient closer look?
Posted Dec 18, 2010 20:30 UTC (Sat) by geissert (subscriber, #61258)
I do agree that it would be a great feature to have and is even in my long term To-Do list, though.
Posted Dec 20, 2010 23:17 UTC (Mon) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051)
DO NOTE: This is a huge report. Your browser may creak under the strain.
Big thanks to cppcheck! :)
Posted Dec 21, 2010 2:01 UTC (Tue) by geissert (subscriber, #61258)
Posted Dec 17, 2010 17:47 UTC (Fri) by jthill (guest, #56558)
Ouch. I sure hope they didn't do signoffs back in 2004 (specifically r109623), those are blatant.
I notice it didn't flag the unchecked malloc returns.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds