Oliver Stöneberg
Oliver Stöneberg
These are not a false positives. The analysis looks at the code and if it sees that the return value is used in most cases it flags it as unintentional...
I will still wait for feedback from @pfultz2 as I have no idea if this was intentional or not.
> I vote to merge this because it is good practice to be explicit. By casting a return value to void, its clear that the return value is ignored in...
Will update after #5703 was merged.
I added those as there's a `passedByValue` false negative in testcppchecklibrary. Also more dogfooding is always good. I did suppress the `naming-privateMemberVariable` warnings since they would have caused almost all...
I think it might make sense to put these into a scheduled job (daily or weekly). At the moment I do not see the need to run these with each...
This exposes some bugs: https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/10667 https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/12918
That is planned but not yet. There's still several workflow which need to be adjusted first and we should have at least one cycle where things are complete but not...
There's a ticket which is essentially about this. It is about switching to Qt6 for the official Windows binaries: https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/12066.
That was the behavior we had in the past. Also as I mentioned it is not yet complete as you are not even able to generate a release with Qt6....