Colin,
If you don't mind, I'm going to leave this to you. I don't understand it
enough to find a related issue or create a new one in the tracker...
Also, I've cleared out all items from my "bug-current" folder today, so the
bug squad should be caught up on that part of the checklist at this point
in time.
Hope you are having a great weekend! Ours is slightly longer for the
American Memorial Day.
Mark
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Julien Nabet <serval2...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> On 18/05/2012 22:27, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/18/12 1:42 PM, "Marek Klein"<ma...@gregoriana.sk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> 2012/5/17 Julien Nabet<serval2...@yahoo.fr>
>>>
>>> I'm not top posting.
>>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just git clone Lilypond project and launched cppcheck (git updated
>>> today).
>>> I thought it could interest you, here are some examples :
>>> [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594] -> [lily/tuplet-bracket.cc:594]: (style)
>>> Same
>>> expression on both sides of '-'
>>> 592 if (!follow_beam)
>>> 593 {
>>> 594 points.push_back (Offset (x0 - x0, staff[dir]));
>>> 595 points.push_back (Offset (x1 - x0, staff[dir]));
>>> 596 }
>>>
>>> [lily/tie-engraver.cc:240]: (performance) Prefer prefix ++/-- operators
>>> for
>>> non-primitive types
>>> 240 for (; it< heads_to_tie_.end (); it++)
>>> 241 report_unterminated_tie (*it);
>>> (+ it's safer to use it != heads_to_tie_.end ())
>>>
>>> [lily/paper-book.cc:346]: (performance) Possible inefficient checking for
>>> 'cols'
>>> emptiness
>>> 346 if (cols.size ())
>>> 347 {
>>> 348 Paper_column *col = dynamic_cast<Paper_column *>
>>> (cols.back ());
>>> 349 col->set_property (symbol, permission);
>>> 350 col->find_prebroken_piece (LEFT)->set_property (symbol,
>>> permission);
>>> 351 }
>>>
>>> If you're interested, I can send you the full report (since there's no
>>> possibility of attachment), just tell me where I can send it.
>>>
>>> Julien.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This need some discussion before tracking an issue, I think - therefore
>>> cc-ing devel...
>>>
>> I think that it would be worth creating an issue, and attaching the output
>> file from cppcheck, as long as the file is not too long.
>>
>> At any rate, I'd like to see the output file.
>>
> I attached the file. As for the issue, I'm not sure having well understood
> your process.
> Anyway if it can help.
>
> To have the file report, just follow these very simple steps :
> 1) retrieve cppcheck
> /git clone
> https://github.com/danmar/**cppcheck.git/<https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck.git/>
> 2) go to cppcheck and compile
> /cd cppcheck && make/
> 3) go to lilypond-git and launch cppcheck
> /~/cppcheck/cppcheck/cppcheck --enable=all ./ 2>./cppcheck_report.txt
> /
> (it launches cppcheck with all the checking rules + put the found elements
> in cppcheck_report.txt + you can follow the progress)
>
> Regards,
>
> Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>
>
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
