chrchr-github

> > Aren't these rules in the selfcheck already? > > No, that file is unused. As mentioned in my previous comment we have the `internal` check implemented in source...

IIRC @pfultz2 is/was using rule files at some point.

> ```c > struct selabel_handle *hnd = selabel_open(SELABEL_CTX_FILE, NULL, 0); // reports constVariablePointer > ``` This should depend on how `hnd` is used later on. It's not clear if this...

> ```c > get_default_type("object_r", type2); // does not report ignoredReturnValue > ``` It is reported if the `` configuration is removed. So I suppose we might suppress the `ignoredReturnValue` in...

> ```c > void getseuserbyname_fail2(void) > { > char *seuser, *level; > getseuserbyname("root", &seuser, &level); > free(level); > > // seuser is leaked; no memleak report > } > ```...

> > ```c > > struct selabel_handle *hnd = selabel_open(SELABEL_CTX_FILE, NULL, 0); // reports constVariablePointer > > ``` > > This should depend on how `hnd` is used later on....

Maybe we should add include detection here: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/blob/dc385f3b4a4b94507ff21f2ec428fd6cb0366ea5/tools/donate_cpu_lib.py#L680

> > Maybe we should add include detection here: > > https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/blob/dc385f3b4a4b94507ff21f2ec428fd6cb0366ea5/tools/donate_cpu_lib.py#L680 > > sorry is this related to this PR? If we could detect the corresponding headers, we would...

> Those need to be disabled though if this library did not existing in the previous stable version or we will get a failure. So we should add it, but...

There is a branch conflict now.