False positives in functions that returns a struct

[pellenilsson]

I experience many false positives in all functions that return a struct or a pointer to struct. Here is a very simple example.

filefilter.txt:

~ RULE_6_1_A_do_not_omit_function_parameter_names

nsiq_test.c:

struct test_struct
{
    int a;
    int b;
};

void func1(int *p, int x);

struct test_struct func2(void)
{
    struct test_struct ts = {1, 2};
    return ts;

    func1(NULL, 0);
}

This gives the following false positive:

/home/pnin/src/skunk/nsiq_test.c(14, 5):  function (func1) has non named parameter. use named parameter.  [RULE_6_1_A_do_not_omit_function_parameter_names]

If I change the return type of func2 to int instead of struct test_struct the error goes away. I suspect that func2 is treated as a struct instead of a function. If I dump contextStack during each iteration in nsiqcppstyle_checker.py, I get this when func2 returns an int:

FUNCTION_BLOCK, func2, LexToken(LBRACE,'{',10,1,91, False, None), LexToken(RBRACE,'}',15,1,165, False, None) >>

And this when func2 returns a struct:

STRUCT_BLOCK, func2, LexToken(LBRACE,'{',10,1,106, False, None), LexToken(RBRACE,'}',15,1,180, False, None) >>

[kunaltyagi]

This is because this code isn't built for C language. If you want to use it for C, use the typedef strict in order to prevent the lexer from thinking it is a struct instead of a function.
Thanks for the detailed context, and the minimal example.
Close the issue if it helps.
Cheers

[pellenilsson]

The README (and the original description on Google Code) claims that both C and C++ are supported, so it would be nice if the documentation explained what limitations exist for C code.

[kunaltyagi]

I have no control over Google Code since I am not the original author, but am maintaining the code for personal use.
However, I'll try to work on this issue. I'll update the README here to incorporate this limitation.
If you can figure out a way to remove the corner case, do create a PR

[pellenilsson]

Thanks! I'll keep you updated in case I find time to do something about it.

Closing the bug since it's now a documented feature. 😉