-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
Includes of system headers are never implicitly relative to the source file #282
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This indicates that code above which also checks
op
for<
might never be executed,There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is
inctok->op
supposed to have any meaning here? By dumping out its value every time we reach this point in a run of thetestrunner
binary, I can see it's a null character in every case except ininclude7()
andinclude8()
, which are both testing the case where the argument to#include
is derived by expanding a preprocessor macro; in these cases it holds a<
character. So perhaps it's left over from the macro expansion? (Apologies, I'm new to thecppcheck
innards, I'm not familiar with how it works.)By chance, until I added my new test, these were also the only cases where the filespec in
inctok->str()
used angle brackets, so for the cases tested bytestrunner
so far, testinginctok->op
was adequate. I agree this looks wrong, but I'm unsure whether the fix should be to look atinctok->str()
instead, or whether to fix the initialisation ofinctok->op
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My initial observation was based on a short look and was wrong. I am also not familiar in how it works.
op
is set to<
in that code above. Since with your change that is not used anymore that can be removed.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An additional note. It seems
op
should only be set if it is a single character token. And if the token isn't already something like a name, number or comment. That wasn't done consistently though - I addressed that within #285.