MASH |
MASH
|
|
|
Reged: 09/26/03
|
Posts: 1781
|
Loc: Germany
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
Cppcheck is a static analysis tool for C/C++ code. Cppcheck does not detect syntax errors like C/C++ compilers but tries to detect bugs that are not visible by the compiler like memory leaks or out of bounds.
Cppcheck is a command line tool but don’t panic, a GUI is also available. With Cppcheck, you can analyze a single file or the content of a whole folder.
Homepage: http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/
Cppcheck 1.50 Win32 installer: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/cppcheck/cppcheck-1.50-x86-Setup.msi
I've tested Cppchec with MAME source and the program found errors!
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
|
Re: Cppcheck a tool for MAME C/C++ code analysis :)
[Re: MASH]
#266117 - 10/12/11 02:04 AM
|
|
|
You really need to say exactly what version of MAME you ran that tool against.
For example, I looked at the warning for emu/addrmap.c and the m_submap_bits field doesn't even exist in address_map_entry in the version I have, which is MAME 0.143.
The 'information' and 'style' 'Schweregrad' entries (whatever that is) are totally irrelevant.
The warnings for emu/drawgfx.h do look serious but I have a feeling that the class in question is only ever created via a new operator which zeroes memory. I don't know for sure but it feels like it would be very MAME-like to have every C++ constructor invoke a version of new that used calloc. Someone else would have to validate this though as I don't have the time at this exact moment to look that up.
|
|
|
redk9258 |
Regular
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 3968
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Cppcheck a tool for MAME C/C++ code analysis :)
[Re: Bryan Ischo]
#266122 - 10/12/11 02:35 AM
|
|
|
> You really need to say exactly what version of MAME you ran that tool against.
My guess is 0.143u7, since that's what's current..
|
|
|
R. Belmont |
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 9717
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Cppcheck a tool for MAME C/C++ code analysis :)
[Re: Bryan Ischo]
#266124 - 10/12/11 02:56 AM
|
|
|
None of what's listed is a problem. We get better diagnostics compiling with top-of-tree Clang.
|
|
|