RedDocMD added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/smart-ptr.cpp:466
+
+ clang_analyzer_eval(ptr == ptr); // expected-warning{{TRUE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(ptr > ptr); // expected-warning{{FALSE}}
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> Putting tests like this on the same path can be risky. Tests might split the
> execution path (maybe not now, but in the future). I think it might be more
> future proof to have a large switch statement that switches on an unknown
> value and put the tests in separate cases.
I didn't quite get you.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
