-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revert valueflow split #6991
Revert valueflow split #6991
Conversation
…rate file (danmar#6845)" This reverts commit 66d53a2.
…e file (danmar#6783)" This reverts commit c348128.
…e file (danmar#6782)" This reverts commit a63b165.
…)" This reverts commit 25d7921.
The error in CI is unrelated to this PR, and is a failure with getting qt packages on windows:
|
This same failure is on the main branch. |
Just looking at the changes files and not the changes it self. Please revert the It also seems you missed to merge back |
I also think the |
|
imho the ts files should not be changed behind our backs. I have always updated the ts files during the release. How do I update the ts files nowadays when qmake support is removed? It would be good to document that step in the createrelease document which I follow when I make the releases. |
I created https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/13322 |
That is done implicitly. Only updating them on release never made sense because that means that they will always be out-of-date during development and might render translated versions unusable. |
ok well if you can make it work properly so that they are only updated when I change a related file I am not against it. Paul did not change any related files here in this PR. |
I am not sure what you are talking about. I reverted the actual commits which should revert everything. |
I'll address that in a leter PR.
Let me put those changes back in this PR.
I dont think the pass is significant enough to have in a seperate file. |
I would prefer if we could revert it all in a single PR.
That's what I said. |
I would prefer it be merged in quicker so we can avoid major merge conflicts if there is another PR making tweaks to ValueFlow. |
I see what you are saying now, I'll address that in a follow-up PR. |
I reverted those now. |
Yeah - I refrained from publishing ones affecting those. Will take a look later today and will merge if it looks okay. I can also do the remaining reverting immediately after. |
I was too tired last night - will take a look when I get back in later. Sorry about that. |
@@ -4571,6 +6163,55 @@ static void valueFlowSmartPointer(TokenList &tokenlist, ErrorLogger & errorLogge | |||
} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
static Library::Container::Yield findIteratorYield(Token* tok, const Token** ftok, const Settings& settings) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes from https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/pull/6737/files#diff-4ea309cd6baf7f501ec7f0a87618c38284008fc3d4579539c8b0d792e37c4765 are not included in this.
VFA_CPP(valueFlowContainerSize(tokenlist, symboldatabase, errorLogger, settings, skippedFunctions)), | ||
VFA(valueFlowSafeFunctions(tokenlist, symboldatabase, errorLogger, settings)), | ||
}); | ||
|
||
runner.run_once({ | ||
VFA(valueFlowDynamicBufferSize(tokenlist, symboldatabase, errorLogger, settings)), | ||
VFA(analyzeDebug(tokenlist, errorLogger, settings)), // TODO: add option to print it after each step/iteration | ||
VFA(valueFlowDebug(tokenlist, errorLogger, settings)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The change from 0cf639c#diff-16a9ec3ff1314646e106eb413234f5614e3a7f527fb82d0a369755bee65a7e31 is lost.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean the comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. Nothing to be addressed here. Just to note the differences I spotted during the review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The *.ts
file changes still need to be dropped.
Otherwise it looks fine. Fortunately not many changes (only two commits - unless I missed something) were done to the split out files.
Just drop the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I pushed a commit dropping the .ts
changes.
restores the changes lost in #6991
Revert most of the moving passes out of valueflow.cpp. Splitting up valueflow should be organized differently.