Cppcheck (version 1.46.1) gives the following warning for an enum like this one:
enum DATABASE_TYPE
{
DATABASE_TYPE_UNKNOWN = -1, // <- line of warning
DATABASE_TYPE_ORACLE,
DATABASE_TYPE_MSACCESS
};
Redundant code: Found a statement that begins with numeric constant
I don't think, that it's redundant. It's quite important to be able to do things like that.
Is this an error of cppcheck or am I not seeing something?
I managed to boil it down to a minimal example. This was complicated by cppcheck having 2 (further) bugs which made it look like my reductions had no effect.
There are 5 files: a.h
, a.cpp
, b.h
, b.cpp
and inc.h
with the following content.
VC9 compiles it without warnings (warning level 4).
// a.h
#pragma once
#include "inc.h"
// a.cpp
#include "a.h"
#include "b.h"
int main()
{
return 0;
}
// b.h
#pragma once
#include "inc.h"
// b.cpp
#include "b.h"
//inc.h
#pragma once
enum MY_ENUM_TYPE
{
INVALID_VALUE = -1,
FIRST_VALUE,
SECOND_VALUE
};
So by now I'm pretty confident that it's a bug of cppcheck. Any diverging opinions?
My guess is, either:
A) invalid
somehow is declared or defined elsewhere.
B) the enum is defined in a header included twice (without header guards). Because you get the same error for this code:
enum SomeEnumType
{
invalid = -1,
first,
second,
};
enum SomeEnumType
{
invalid = -1, // <- line of warning
first,
second,
};
Does your code compile with GCC?
UPDATE:
Yes, this seems like a cppcheck bug - #pragma once
is not working. If you replace it with #ifndef A_H
/ #define A_H
/ #endif
header wrapping, cppcheck does not complain anymore.
This also seems like a recognized problem.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With