On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 13:39 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Christian Lohmaier
>> wrote:
>> > Hi *,
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe wrote:
>> >> [cppcheck patches]
>> >
>> > I'm c
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 13:39 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Christian Lohmaier
> wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe wrote:
> >> [cppcheck patches]
> >
> > I'm curious: Why does cppcheck "complain" about "for i++" and
> > su
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Christian Lohmaier
wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe wrote:
>> [cppcheck patches]
>
> I'm curious: Why does cppcheck "complain" about "for i++" and
> suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)?
>
> Is there any noticabl
Hi Christian,
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:09:36 +0100, Christian Lohmaier
wrote:
> I'm curious: Why does cppcheck "complain" about "for i++" and
> suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)?
>
> Is there any noticable difference?
Yes, see:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/operator
Hi *,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Takeshi Abe wrote:
> [cppcheck patches]
I'm curious: Why does cppcheck "complain" about "for i++" and
suggests/demands pre-increment instead (for ... ++i)?
Is there any noticable difference?
ciao
Christian
_
Hi,
Followed cppcheck.
Cheers,
-- Takeshi Abe
>From a3800ef12f07f6ac56bca79aa55ad480de8cbc84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Takeshi Abe
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:28:16 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] cppcheck: reduce the scope of variables
---
dbaccess/source/ui/misc/DExport.cxx |4
