NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PlistDiagnostics.cpp:20-21
#include "clang/Basic/Version.h"
#include "clang/CrossTU/CrossTranslationUnit.h"
#include "clang/Frontend/ASTUnit.h"
#include "clang/Lex/Preprocessor.h"
----------------
Will these two includes be ultimately removed? Like, even in the CTU case?
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Analysis/Inputs/expected-plists/plist-macros-with-expansion.cpp.plist:148
<key>name</key><string>SET_PTR_VAR_TO_NULL</string>
- <key>expansion</key><string>ptr = 0</string>
+ <key>expansion</key><string>ptr =0</string>
</dict>
----------------
steakhal wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > martong wrote:
> > > martong wrote:
> > > > I wonder how much added value do we have with these huge and clumsy
> > > > plist files... We already have the concise unittests, which are quite
> > > > self explanatory. I'd just simply delete these plist files.
> > > Perhaps in the test cpp file we should just execute a FileCheck for the
> > > expansions. We are totally not interested to check the whole contents of
> > > the plist, we are interested only to see if there were expansions.
> > We do need some plist tests to ensure that the correct plist format is
> > emitted. How much of those do we need might be up for debate.
> It's certainly a pain to keep all the locations in sync with the code.
I'm absolutely in favor of not testing the //entire// plist files whenever
possible. Just keep some minimal context available so that to not accidentally
match the wrong test. Yes we obviously need some tests for the entire plist
files but we already have a lot of that.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
