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

[kent williams]

Yeah, and I don¹t think cppcheck¹s suggestions for changing method
signatures would fly either.

Though it¹s hard to think how going from

void myclass::method(const sometype parameter);

to 

void myclass::method(const &sometype parameter);

would break things, unless it somehow will blow the Wrapping code¹s mind.


On 9/3/09 11:16 AM, "Karthik Krishnan" <karthik.krishnan at kitware.com> wrote:

> 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/20090903/04e887dc/attachment.htm>