Enable cppcheck and fix related mostly false-positive warnings #496
Conversation
rouault
force-pushed
the
cppcheck
branch
3 times, most recently
from
fd35f0c
to
3db75dd
Compare
| @@ -85,7 +85,10 @@ static void Init() { | |||
| tolb = tol0 * tol2; | |||
| xthresh = 1000 * tol2; | |||
| degree = pi/180; | |||
| NaN = sqrt(-1.0); | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps this should be changed upstream?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cffk See above. One of the versions of cppcheck complains that sqrt(-1.0) is undefined, but later no longer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I'll backport these changes. Also I note that Visual Studio gives two warnings
that S12 "may" be uninitialized. It's wrong! but I initialize it to 0 in those places together
with a comment /* Initialize S12 to stop Visual Studio warning */
src/PJ_labrd.c
Outdated
| @@ -60,14 +60,18 @@ static LP e_inverse (XY xy, PJ *P) { /* Ellipsoidal, inverse */ | |||
| xy.y += Q->Cb * V1 - Q->Ca * V2 - Q->Cd * V3 + Q->Cc * V4; | |||
| ps = Q->p0s + xy.y / Q->kRg; | |||
| pe = ps + P->phi0 - Q->p0s; | |||
| for ( i = 20; i; --i) { | |||
|
|
|||
| V1 = Q->A * log(tan(M_FORTPI + .5 * pe)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't a do {} while () be the more elegant solution here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That didn't help. There are some regressions in cppcheck git HEAD. I finally just initialized t = 0.0 to make it happy, even if it isn't needed
src/PJ_labrd.c
Outdated
| @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static XY e_forward (LP lp, PJ *P) { /* Ellipsoidal, forward */ | |||
| static LP e_inverse (XY xy, PJ *P) { /* Ellipsoidal, inverse */ | |||
| LP lp = {0.0,0.0}; | |||
| struct pj_opaque *Q = P->opaque; | |||
| double x2, y2, V1, V2, V3, V4, t, t2, ps, pe, tpe, s; | |||
| double x2, y2, V1, V2, V3, V4, t = 0.0, t2, ps, pe, tpe, s; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recommend tagging (with a comment) any unnecessary initializations performed to suppress a warning. Then a developer 5 years from now won't be left wondering whether the value t = 0.0 ever gets used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. Comment added
No description provided.