◐ Shell
reader mode source ↗
Skip to content

fixed #14331 - suppressions with line number not reported as unmatched#8035

Draft
firewave wants to merge 2 commits into
cppcheck-opensource:mainfrom
firewave:unmatch-line
Draft

fixed #14331 - suppressions with line number not reported as unmatched#8035
firewave wants to merge 2 commits into
cppcheck-opensource:mainfrom
firewave:unmatch-line

Conversation

@firewave

@firewave firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

No description provided.

@firewave firewave changed the title fixed # - suppressions with line number not reported as unmatched Dec 15, 2025
@firewave firewave force-pushed the unmatch-line branch 2 times, most recently from ae7c0c4 to 653e0e6 Compare December 15, 2025 12:03
@firewave firewave marked this pull request as ready for review December 15, 2025 12:03
@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The cfg test failures are caused by missing configurations.

@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The Python test is passing locally for me - needs more looking into.

@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The cfg test failures are caused by missing configurations.

See at least https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/1059#comment:11 among possibly other tickets.

@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The Python test is passing locally for me - needs more looking into.

Ah, they fail only with -j2.

@firewave firewave marked this pull request as draft December 15, 2025 12:45
@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The cfg test failures are caused by missing configurations.

See at least https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/1059#comment:11 among possibly other tickets.

Actually this is related to __cplusplus already being defined (always). When macros are flagged as built-in (see cppcheck-opensource/simplecpp#547) we might be able to add some handling for this.

I filed https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/14333 about it.

@firewave

firewave commented Dec 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

This needs more looking into regarding inline suppressions in inactive code.

@sonarqubecloud

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Dec 29, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

@firewave

firewave commented Dec 29, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

The Python test is passing locally for me - needs more looking into.

Ah, they fail only with -j2.

This is an issue unrelated to my changes. I filed https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/14350 about it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@firewave