[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cppcheck reports patch for 2546
From: |
Julien Nabet |
Subject: |
Re: Cppcheck reports patch for 2546 |
Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2012 08:30:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3 |
On 19/05/2012 00:36, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Thanks for the file, Julien. I have split the warnings into various
issues.
See issues 2545, 2546, and 2548 through 2554 on the issue tracker.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2545&colspec=ID%20Type%2
0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2546&colspec=ID%20Type%2
0Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
etc.
Julien, if you want to fix any of these, I'd be happy to help you get
patches reviewed and pushed.
Here's instructions on uploading a patch for review:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/commits-and-patches
#uploading-a-patch-for-review
Since I don't have a Google account to sign in to
http://codereview.appspot.com/, I attached the patch for 2546.
Don't hesitate to tell me if it's ok or not. (I attached a link to why
prefix is better).
Julien.
PS : about why it's better to use != instead of < for end iterator
comparison, see http://forums.codeguru.com/archive/index.php/t-428940.html
Sorry, I would have preferred a more "official" link
0001-Fix-2546-Prefix-incrementers-may-be-preferred-for-no.patch
Description: Text Data