On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 08:46 +0100, Julien Nabet wrote:
> I don't understand too the part about hiding something from cppcheck,
> wouldn't it be better to declare a new bug to cppcheck tracker ?
Quite possibly
> But perhaps I misunderstood something
I reckon we really should be calling cppcheck w
Le 08/01/2011 08:39, Julien Nabet a écrit :
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 11:07 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>/ On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:36 +0100, Guillaume Poussel wrote:
/>/ > Hi everybody,
/>/ >
/>/ >
/>/ > A new patch which correct cppcheck warnings in base/.
/>/
/>/ Looks good, pushed. Than
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:36 +0100, Guillaume Poussel wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
>
> A new patch which correct cppcheck warnings in base/.
Looks good, pushed. Thanks for this.
C.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lis
On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 11:07 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 20:36 +0100, Guillaume Poussel wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> >
> > A new patch which correct cppcheck warnings in base/.
>
> Looks good, pushed. Thanks for this.
Oops, I see now that cppcheck isn't run with suffi
