[Insight-developers] Anyone looked at cppcheck for static analysis of ITK?

[Karthik Krishnan]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, kent williams
<norman-k-williams at uiowa.edu>wrote:

> I wouldn't mind taking some time to work on cppcheck-correcting ITK, but of
> course, it would be better if the people who 'own' particular files look at
> cppcheck's suggestions and modify the code based on their intimate knowlege
> of it. I doubt that there will be much in the way of real bugs found, but
> it
> will help in reability and maintainability.
>
> There are complaints cppcheck generates that maybe ought not be fixed. For
> instance, cppcheck thinks every member variable in a class should be
> initialized in the constructor. This might hurt performance in some cases,
> if they're in classes that get created and destroyed in 'inner loop'
> situations.
>

such as itk::Point , itk::Vector, itk::Size etc.

These are uninitialized and created hundereds of times.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090903/b79651c7/attachment.htm>