martong added a comment. In D101526#3883871 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526#3883871>, @NoQ wrote:
> Looks great to me, thanks!! Thanks for the review! ================ Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints-notes.cpp:32-33 __buf_size_arg_constraint_concrete(buf); // \ - // expected-note{{The size of the 1st arg should be equal to or less than the value of 10}} \ + // expected-note{{The size of the 1st argument should be equal to or greater than the value of 10}} \ // expected-warning{{}} break; ---------------- NoQ wrote: > The warning is the same as the note here right? > > Our warnings traditionally describe the problem (the 1st argument *is* less > than 10, and this *is* bad because...), not how things "should" be. I guess > we can think more about that later. No, actually, the warning is different, it does not contain the text "should be". In this case this is it: ``` Line 31: Function argument constraint is not satisfied, constraint: BufferSize [alpha.unix.StdCLibraryFunctionArgs] ``` And then the notes basically further explain how the constraint is not satisfied. I did not put the check for the warnings here because this test file is responsible for checking the notes only, hence it has the name `std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints-notes.cpp`. The warnings are directly tested in `std-c-library-functions-arg-constraints.c`, however, I have to admit, probably we should have even more specific checks for the warning messages there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101526 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits