[pduchi]

I don't have a Trac account, so there is no ticket for this; the details are below. Feel free to create one and I'll add it to the title.

Passing an allocated pointer to a function configured as <use> still gives a --check-library message:

use.cfg:

<memory>
  <alloc>myalloc</alloc>
  <use>set_data</use>
  <dealloc>myfree</dealloc>
</memory>
<function name="myalloc"><noreturn>false</noreturn><arg nr="1"/></function>
<function name="set_data"><noreturn>false</noreturn><arg nr="1"/></function>

use.c:

void f(void)
{
    char *p = myalloc(10);
    set_data(p);
}

$ cppcheck --check-library --library=use.cfg use.c
use.c:5:1: warning: --check-library: Function set_data() should have <use>/<leak-ignore> configuration [checkLibraryUseIgnore]

The cfg reference says <use> exists to silence exactly this message, but CheckLeakAutoVarImpl::configurationInfo() only took <leak-ignore/> into account. It now skips functions that have <use> as well. The leak analysis itself is unchanged.

Test: TestLeakAutoVar::configurationUse; it fails without the change.

[dmcppcheck]

There should probably be a trac ticket for this PR. Please create it, or ask us to create it. Then the PR title should be updated.

[dmcppcheck]

AI review

I found no new problems. With the PR, --check-library stops reporting checkLibraryUseIgnore for functions configured as <use>, both at the end of the scope and on early-return paths. That is what man/reference-cfg-format.md says <use> is for. The leak analysis itself gives the same results as before. The only earlier comment, which asks for a Trac ticket, is still open.

Testing

• I built cppcheck and testrunner in pr/, and cppcheck in base/.
• ./testrunner TestLeakAutoVar TestLeakAutoVarStrcpy TestLeakAutoVarRecursiveCountLimit TestLeakAutoVarWindows TestLeakAutoVarPosix: 161 tests ran, 0 failed. This includes the new configurationUse test.
• Scratch tests. I wrote a custom cfg with <use> entries in a <memory> group (set_data, ns::take) and in a <resource> group (rsetup), then ran cppcheck --check-library --enable=information from PR and base on these cases:
  • Simple case: p is passed to set_data(p). The base reports checkLibraryUseIgnore; the PR does not.
  • Qualified name: passing p to ns::take(p) also gives the message in base and not in the PR.
  • Resource handle: passing an int handle to rsetup(fd) behaves the same way.
  • Early return: with if (set_data(p)) { return; }, base gives two messages (one per path) and the PR gives none.
  • Order of calls: for set_data(p); g(p);, both versions still report g() as needing configuration. For g(p); set_data(p);, neither version reports g(), because the later call already overwrote the possible usage in base.
  • Real leak: set_data(p + 1) gets the same memleak error in both versions.
• Real cfg file: I ran cppcheck with the options from test/cfg/runtests.sh on test/cfg/gtk.c with --library=gtk, which uses many <use> entries. PR and base gave identical output.
• No file in test/cfg or test/cli mentions checkLibraryUseIgnore, so no inline suppression there becomes unmatched.
• I did not run the Python tests in test/cli, because the PR does not touch them.

---

Automated review of 1301cc4 by Claude. The pull request was built and tested locally.

[pduchi]

There should probably be a trac ticket for this PR. Please create it, or ask us to create it. Then the PR title should be updated.

Can you create one for me? I send you a private msg ( danielmarjamaki ) in the meantime for getting access to trac with a htpasswd.