fix #13378: syntax error for guessed macro value

[ludviggunne]

Example output:

Checking tickets/13378.c ...
Checking tickets/13378.c: START...
tickets/13378.c:3:5: error: literal used as function. Macro 'START' expands to '1'. Use -DSTART=... to specify a value, or -USTART to undefine it. [unknownMacro]
    START();
    ^

With -DSTART the syntax error remains:

Checking tickets/13378.c ...
Checking tickets/13378.c: START=1...
tickets/13378.c:3:5: error: syntax error [syntaxError]
    START();
    ^

[firewave]

You can specify actual macros via the CLI (at least with compilers): -D'name(args...)=definition'.

I used this recently somewhere in simplecpp or Cppcheck (most likely a local change) but I cannot remember where.

[ludviggunne]

You can specify actual macros via the CLI (at least with compilers): -D'name(args...)=definition'.

I used this recently somewhere in simplecpp or Cppcheck (most likely a local change) but I cannot remember where.

Hm, sorry but could you point out how this affects this PR?

[firewave]

Use -DSTART=... to specify a value -> Use -DSTART(args...)=definition to specify it

And I guess having -USTART would only fix something if there was an #ifdef related to that macro. So maybe that should be dropped from the message.

This might also be addressed by fixing a missingInclude warning or providing a library.

On a side note - if we would apply that logic during the macro parsing we could (optionally) generate a configuration which already provides these - in some cases. That would require less user interaction. But that is obviously out of scope.

[ludviggunne]

And I guess having -USTART would only fix something if there was an #ifdef related to that macro. So maybe that should be dropped from the message.

Ah, maybe I should have provided more context. Here's the code from the ticket:

void foo(void) {
#ifdef START
    START();
#endif
}

[firewave]

Ah, maybe I should have provided more context.

My fault. I did not look at the ticket. But to be fair there are also no tests added.

But I guess you will also get that message if the preprocessor check is missing.

I will file tickets about my notes.

[ludviggunne]

But to be fair there are also no tests added.

Oh yes, just thought it would be good to have it up as a draft to get som input on the messages.

[firewave]

Oh yes, just thought it would be good to have it up as a draft to get som input on the messages.

I think it is a good change we can built upon.

[ludviggunne]

This might also be addressed by fixing a missingInclude warning or providing a library.

That's a good point. I suppose it could make the message quite long, would it be appropriate to split it into multiple messages?

[firewave]

That's a good point. I suppose it could make the message quite long, would it be appropriate to split it into multiple messages?

I would keep it simple as it is not mention it at all. This is another case where the list of suggestions could be endless and misleading.