whisperity added a comment.
Two minor comments.
With regards to the function naming, the problem with incremental counts is
that they get out of sync, like they did with `fXpY` and such, and if someone
wants to keep the count incremental down the file, adding any new test will
result in an unnecessarily large patch. Perhaps you could use `void T_()` for
the test that calls `T::T()`?
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object.cpp:660
+}
+#endif // PEDANTIC
+class MultiPointerTest3 {
----------------
A newline between `#endif` and the next token is missing here.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object.cpp:1412
+ struct RecordType;
+ // no-crash
+ RecordType *recptr; // expected-note{{uninitialized pointer 'this->recptr}}
----------------
What is this comment symbolising? Is this actually something the test
infrastructure picks up?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
