Oliver Stöneberg
Oliver Stöneberg
I get the argument but we probably have broken things even worse recently. I adjusted the code so it now states that it will be removed in an unspecified future...
I think slightly improving the fuzzing of garbage code is fine. > wild idea; could you run `gcc -fsyntax-only` or some lightweight syntax checker before passing the code to cppcheck?...
I came across a case of incomplete code which triggered a crash which gave me an idea how we could "fuzz" our project in a more "sensible" way compared to...
Just some comment via looking at the implementation yet. The validation is definitely fine in any way of the static configs. In terms of the addon output we need to...
After finally understanding fuzzing I ended up with a conclusion which matches this in #6119. We do not need an additional fuzzer but simply can apply these changes to the...
> For this reason I didn't address that yet. To me a first logical step would seem to make the addon output one big JSON, not a set of JSON...
heads up: #5870 will change the naming of the pytest-based test files I still haven't looked at this. I currently am in the midst of finished up something else as...
Sorry for the late reply. I hope to take a proper look this week. What about the additional changes you wanted to push?
Part of valueflow was just disabled by default without providing any feedback about it. As this message will probably happen in any invocation of the tool this shows that this...