F. Cenedese

I don't know how useful those numbers are but here they are: Tokenizer::simplifyTokens1: 287890s (avg. 2.40855s - 119528 result(s)) Tokenizer::tokenize::simplifyTemplates: 62847.5s (avg. 0.552831s - 113683 result(s)) Class::runChecks: 50961.3s (avg. 0.75599s - 67410 result(s)) Tokenizer::simplifyTokens1::ValueFlow: 39281.9s (avg. 0.346704s - 113301 result(s)) Tokenizer::tokenize::simplifyTypedef: 38793.5s (avg. 0.340234s - 114020 result(s)) Tokenizer::simplifyTokens1::createSymbolDatabase: 25886s...

2.3 finds the same issues as 2.2 but needs again more time: 2.3 Class::runChecks: 2867.73s (avg. 19.2465s - 149 result(s)) Other::runChecks: 89.245s (avg. 0.59896s - 149 result(s)) Type::runChecks: 77.126s (avg. 0.517624s - 149 result(s)) String::runChecks: 26.279s (avg. 0.176369s - 149 result(s)) Overall time: 5110.34s And again: That's checking a single .cpp file, with one core of a Ryzen.

I made a test with checking one .cpp file of our base with 2.1 and 2.2. Concerning results, 2.2 found the same issues that 2.1 did and two additional knownConditionTrueFalse issues. Timewise 2.1 needed 1252s, 2.2 needed 3184s (reported statistics, not measured by myself). Biggest differences: 2.1 Class::runChecks: 112.148s (avg. 0.752671s - 149 result(s)) Other::runChecks: 9.753s (avg. 0.0654564s - 149 result(s)) Type::runChecks: 5.069s (avg. 0.0340201s - 149 result(s)) String::runChecks: 1.136s...

Do you mean that the times of --showtime=summary aren't useful if used together with -j? Because I'm already doing it now. But a run that needed about 11 hours was reported as 586625s which is over 6 days. I guess I can remove that switch for the normal run.

Hello I'm using cppcheck on our code base and wondered about newer versions. I'm currently using 2.1 on Windows which works like previous versions did (e.g. 1.85). I then tried 2.2. That still runs but needs a multiple of time than 2.1. Whereas 2.1 needed a few hours, version 2.2 hadn't finished in days, with the same config (on the same machine, same resources etc). It was still working, not dead, just a lot slower. I then tried version 2.3, hoping that it had been fixed. However this version ran...

On 21 Aug 2020 17:34, "Daniel Marjamäki" wrote: Well |(Thread^)| is not a C/C++ cast. Is it objective/managed C++ or something? Cppcheck does not know about such casts and therefore warns. If it is objective/managed C/C++ I am afraid that is out of scope for Cppcheck. I am no expert in these dialects but I fear there are a number of concepts that Cppcheck would need to understand.. it's not just these casts. Just thinking: Doxygen allows to define filters where the examined source files are first...

Hi Trying to install the XDD plugin suite fails to install the editor with this error: Missing requirement: Ethernet POWERLINK XDD Editor 1.1.0.201711290851 (com.br_automation.buoat.xddeditor.feature.feature.group 1.1.0.201711290851) requires 'org.eclipse.eef.edit 0.0.0' but it could not be found Is eef maybe a typo? Or should that have been bundled? Thanks