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

[Pavel Roschin]

> 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
> 
>      Py_INCREF(Py_None);
>      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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Matthew Brush
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.geany.org
> https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel


cppcheck has ability to search includes, just add option
-I<path-to-python-include-dir> like for compiler
But it will increase checking time significantly. Other way - create simple
header file with this define implementation and use it with --include option.

--
Best regards,
Pavel Roschin aka RPG