[Geany-Devel] Plugin-Maintainer: Please review PR and comment on them/merge them

Matthew Brush mbrush at xxxxx
Sat Mar 29 00:29:22 UTC 2014

On 14-03-28 10:31 AM, Pavel Roschin wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2014 10:00, schrieb Lex Trotman:
>>> On 28 March 2014 19:46, Frank Lanitz <frank at frank.uvena.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 28.03.2014 01:10, schrieb Lex Trotman:
>>>>> The one you made on Geanypy has already been improved by upstream
>>>>> (Matthew) so you should just commit that improvement.
>>>> I was planning to have a look onto it Sunday (you mean #116, don't
>>>> you?). But this is not a feature, only kind of a bug fix ;)
>>> Yep that one, I guess its more a feature since there is no bug (in
>>> Geanypy), more its a bug in cppcheck :)
>> ... well.... puh... At least it's not changing any string ;)
>> However, will do it at the weekend.
>> cheers,
>> Frank
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devel mailing list
>> Devel at lists.geany.org
>> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Here is definitely false-positeve. cppcheck was confused by a terrible define:
> return operator inside... Without return operator of course here could be a bug.

Good static analyzer (eg. clang's static analyzer) can expand macros and 
would see the return. Maybe we could/should preprocess the code before 
we cppcheck it?

IIRC Py_RETURN_NONE just expands to something like

     return Py_None;

I'm not opposed to using the full code like this, it's maybe a little 
nicer than the "fix" I mentioned in the PR comment, but IIRC there are 
multiple places where `Py_RETURN_NONE` and `Py_RETURN_TRUE/FALSE` are 
used like this that might also need to be updated.

Matthew Brush

More information about the Devel mailing list