xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1013
+ addToFunctionSummaryMap(
+ "__buf_size_arg_constraint_mul",
+ Summary(ArgTypes{ConstVoidPtrTy, SizeTy, SizeTy}, RetType{IntTy},
----------------
martong wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > martong wrote:
> > > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > > Why do we need these test functions? Above I saw `fread` as an example
> > > > that requires this capability. Wouldn't it be better to make its
> > > > summary utilize the new feature and use `fread` in tests? Do I miss
> > > > something?
> > > Yeah, we could test that with `fread`. However, in `fread` there are
> > > multiple argument constraints for the different args. I wanted a test
> > > function which has this arg constraint in an isolation. In my opinion it
> > > is good to have small isolated unit tests that test only one
> > > functionality. Also if we decide to remove or modify `fread`s summary for
> > > any reason, then we should modify this test too, on the other hand, with
> > > this test function it is not a problem.
> > I see. The plan in the future is to split this checker up a bit. In this
> > case I'd like to have these test functions in a separate test checker.
> > Until then I'm fine with a FIXME/TODO.
> They are already enabled only if a test checker is enabled, check out the
> enclosing `if` of this block:
> ```
> if (ChecksEnabled[CK_StdCLibraryFunctionsTesterChecker]) {
> ```
Oh, sorry, my bad :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77148/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77148
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
