dcoughlin added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/Analysis/Inputs/system-header-simulator-cxx.h:349 @@ +348,3 @@ + // No warning is expected as we are suppressing warning coming + // out of std::basic_string. + int z = 0; ---------------- NoQ wrote: > You mean std::shared_ptr here? > > Also, perhaps it's better to move this example into separate fake method; if > this header emulator is used in another test, wouldn't the author of that > test be surprised to see that operator=() is modeled that way? Yes, this is copy pasta!
================ Comment at: test/Analysis/Inputs/system-header-simulator-cxx.h:349 @@ +348,3 @@ + // No warning is expected as we are suppressing warning coming + // out of std::basic_string. + int z = 0; ---------------- dcoughlin wrote: > NoQ wrote: > > You mean std::shared_ptr here? > > > > Also, perhaps it's better to move this example into separate fake method; > > if this header emulator is used in another test, wouldn't the author of > > that test be surprised to see that operator=() is modeled that way? > Yes, this is copy pasta! > Also, perhaps it's better to move this example into separate fake method; if > this header emulator is used in another test, wouldn't the author of that > test be surprised to see that operator=() is modeled that way? We don't really model much in this this fake header, but I could move all the truly gross suppression stuff (basic string, _independent_bits_engine, shared_ptr) into a separate header and name it something that clearly indicates other tests shouldn't use it. I'll update the patch. http://reviews.llvm.org/D22048 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits