martong marked an inline comment as done. martong added a comment. Thanks for the review guys!
================ Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c:1-7 +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 %s \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctions \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=apiModeling.StdCLibraryFunctionArgs \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=debug.ExprInspection \ +// RUN: -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu \ +// RUN: -verify ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > martong wrote: > > Szelethus wrote: > > > Hmm, why do we have 2 different test files that essentially do the same? > > > Shouldn't we only have a single one with `analyzer-output=text`? > > No, I wanted to have two different test files to test two different things: > > (1) We do have the constraints applied (here we don't care about the > > warnings and the path) > > (2) Check that we have a warning with the proper tracking and notes. > What if we had different `-verify`s? > `clang/test/Analysis/track-conditions.cpp` is a great example. Yeah, that's a very good approach, I just changed it like that. :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73898 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
