xazax.hun added a comment.
Thanks! Having more tests is always welcome!
I mentioned some nits inline, but I wonder if you actually need to add a new
check. Can't you just reuse existing debug checks?
We have the expr inspeciton checker that supports the following functions:
clang_analyzer_warnIfReached
clang_analyzer_eval
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitorTest.cpp:24
+ do
\
+ if (!LLVM_WITH_Z3)
\
+ return;
\
----------------
I think this might not be the idiomatic way to skip a test. Consider using `
GTEST_SKIP();`.
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitorTest.cpp:65
+
+ bool reportIfCanBeZero(const CallEvent &Call, CheckerContext &C,
+ ProgramStateRef State) const {
----------------
Maybe `reportIfArgCanBeZero`?
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/FalsePositiveRefutationBRVisitorTest.cpp:115
+ llvm::raw_string_ostream OS(Diags);
+ return tooling::runToolOnCodeWithArgs(
+ std::make_unique<TestAction<addFalsePositiveGenerator>>(OS), Code, Args,
----------------
Wasn't `runCheckerOnCodeWithArgs` created for this purpose?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78704/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78704
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
