Mike

cppcheck --platform=unix32 --enable=all foo.c ... yields the same result.

Yes, I agree. Should it be marked as a duplicate? I am not sure I understand kidkat's comment on https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/10616 that if we assume overflow is possible, we get other false positives. Might it be possible to evaluate the expression in the conditions to see if is trying to detect overflow?

I am developing some C code on a Raspberry Pi for an embedded system and using cppcheck to help with static analysis. I am using the command line, open source cppcheck version 2.13. See attached bar.c. When I run "cppcheck --platform=unspecified --enable=all bar.c", I receive a style warning about an always false condition being tested. I think that this warning is a false positive.

I am developing some C code on a Raspberry Pi for an embedded system and using cppcheck to help with static analysis. I am using the command line, open source cppcheck version 2.13. See attached foo.c. When I run "cppcheck --platform=unspecified --enable=all foo.c", I receive a warning about an incorrect type being passed to printf(). I think that this warning is a false positive.