Hi, just to be more clear, yes, the return values of the instances you highlight should be checked, it's an oversight that they're not, so a Merge Request would be most welcome, if that's what you're offering. Otherwise I'll put them on my to-do list, thanks!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
which passes with 3 lines marked as NOLINT. However any further suggestions or tools and/or integrating such checks into the make process would be very useful.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks. cppcheck has been drawn to my attention before (see ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/zint/tickets/233/) but I haven't run it since then (it is/was rather slow and CPU-intensive). The others weren't on my radar. Will check them out and give them a spin.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi Markus, any improvements most welcome! Thanks Martin
Hi, just to be more clear, yes, the return values of the instances you highlight should be checked, it's an oversight that they're not, so a Merge Request would be most welcome, if that's what you're offering. Otherwise I'll put them on my to-do list, thanks!
How do you think about to improve static source code analysis also for this software?
I'd be all for that. I do run
clang-tidy
locally on"backend/*.c"
pretty regularly:which passes with 3 lines marked as
NOLINT
. However any further suggestions or tools and/or integrating such checks into the make process would be very useful.I am trying to increase the development attention also for tools like the following.
Thanks.
cppcheck
has been drawn to my attention before (see ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/zint/tickets/233/) but I haven't run it since then (it is/was rather slow and CPU-intensive). The others weren't on my radar. Will check them out and give them a spin.