Daniel Marjamäki

I want to release during the coming week. Please let me know here if you have some bugs you work on that must be merged before the release.

Let's start preparing for Cppcheck 2.21 release. let's try to focus on bug fixes for a wihle. there are 3 crashes reported right now but they could be temporary let's see.

I have moved the repositories cppcheck, simplecpp and cppcheck-htdocs to https://github.com/cppcheck-opensource

I would like that the --xml-version=3 report contains a list of files. All source and header files that has been used in the analysis. And I would prefer to write the SHA-256 hash for each file. With this information it will be possible to verify later if a certain xml report was generated when cppcheck checked certain files with specific contents or not. I have looked up https://github.com/okdshin/PicoSHA2 it looks acceptable to me.. What is your opinions? Do you feel it's a nice feature for open...

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"};