danielmarjamaki added a comment.
I agree with the comments from you dcoughlin but I am not sure how to do it.
> Can you also add a test that tests this more directly (i.e., with
> clang_analyzer_warnIfReached). I don't think it is good to have the only test
> for this core coverage issue to be in tests for an alpha checker. Adding the
> direct test would also make it easier to track down any regression if it
> happens. The 'func.c' test file might be a good place for such a test.
I totally agree.
In func.c there such comments:
// expected-warning{{FALSE|TRUE|UNKNOWN}}
what does those FALSE|TRUE|UNKNOWN do?
I don't see what this will do:
clang_analyzer_eval(!f);
I want that both returns are reached. and I want to ensure that result from
function is both 1 and 0.
> You could also try to add a canary with clang analyzer eval after the if
> statement to force the test to fail if we do add this symbolic reasoning.
sounds good. sorry but I don't see how to do it.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25326
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
