Update cppcheck and astyle versions

[matt335672]

Bumped astyle and cppcheck to latest versions.

There's an issue with cppcheck which I'd appreciate a comment on. Version 2.13.0 was taking around 20 minutes or so to run. With 2.14.0, I get warnings like this with the same sources:-

common/base64.c:0:0: information: Limiting analysis of branches. Use --check-level=exhaustive to analyze all branches. [normalCheckLevelMaxBranches]

^
common/file.c:0:0: information: Limiting analysis of branches. Use --check-level=exhaustive to analyze all branches. [normalCheckLevelMaxBranches]

^
common/list.c:0:0: information: Limiting analysis of branches. Use --check-level=exhaustive to analyze all branches. [normalCheckLevelMaxBranches]

^
common/log.c:0:0: information: Limiting analysis of branches. Use --check-level=exhaustive to analyze all branches. [normalCheckLevelMaxBranches]
...

If I use --check-level=exhaustive with 2.14.0, I get check times of around an hour:-

https://github.com/matt335672/xrdp/actions/runs/8781923998/job/24094941025

However, if I just disable the warnings and go with --check-level=normal, I'm getting run times of about 4 minutes, 30 seconds:-

https://github.com/matt335672/xrdp/actions/runs/8782777220/job/24097568007

Neither option seems as good to me, but I've gone for the shorter one. A longer run can still be requested manually.

Any thoughts appreciated.

[firewave]

It is a bit of a mess right now and discussions are ongoing about this.

--check-level=normal disables a whole part of ValueFlow which saw a massive performance regression in 2.14. So going for --check-level=exhaustive will seriously increase your run-time. Also the threshold for normalCheckLevelMaxBranches is currently not configurable and determined inconsistently and exceeded quite easily (https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/12508).

So suppressing the messages for now and leaving the --check-level=normal should be the way to go.

[matt335672]

Thanks for the update @firewave. That's an interesting link.

[firewave]

Also please CC me on any future Cppcheck-related things.

[matt335672]

cppcheck version updated to 2.14.1

Check times for both normal and extensive remain unaltered from 2.14.0

@firewave - I'm unsure what the best thing to do here is. Is it likely in later versions of cppcheck that we'll regain more rational behaviour without specifying a check_level? Or should we proceed with a check_level of normal for CI purposes, and keep an option of running an extensive check before releases?