steakhal marked 2 inline comments as done.
steakhal added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/eval-predefined-exprs.cpp:1
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 --std=c++17 
-analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify %s
+
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Isn't it `-std=c++17`?
Thanks, typo.


================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/eval-predefined-exprs.cpp:7-21
+  clang_analyzer_dump(__func__);
+  clang_analyzer_dump(__FUNCTION__);
+  clang_analyzer_dump(__PRETTY_FUNCTION__);
+  // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"func",0 S64b,char}}}
+  // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"func",0 S64b,char}}}
+  // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"void func(U) [T = Class, Value = 42, U = 
char]",0 S64b,char}}}
+}
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> Why not put the expected warning right below the function call?
That would seriously violate the column limit.
This way it is easier to see and validate the pattern IMO.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D87004/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D87004

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to