martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/eval-predefined-exprs.cpp:7-21
+ clang_analyzer_dump(__func__);
+ clang_analyzer_dump(__FUNCTION__);
+ clang_analyzer_dump(__PRETTY_FUNCTION__);
+ // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"func",0 S64b,char}}}
+ // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"func",0 S64b,char}}}
+ // expected-warning@-3 {{&Element{"void func(U) [T = Class, Value = 42, U =
char]",0 S64b,char}}}
+}
----------------
martong wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > Why not put the expected warning right below the function call?
> > That would seriously violate the column limit.
> > This way it is easier to see and validate the pattern IMO.
> This could be like:
> ```
> clang_analyzer_dump(__FUNCDNAME__); // \
> // expected-warning@-4
> {{&Element{"??$func@UClass@?1??foo@@YAXXZ@$0CK@D@@YAXD@Z",0 S64b,char}}}
> clang_analyzer_dump(L__FUNCTION__); // \
> // expected-warning@-4 {{&Element{L"func",0 S64b,wchar_t}}}
> ...
> ```
> So, this way you can keep the line limit, I think this is what @Szelethus
> refers to.
> This could be like: ...
There is no need for the `@-4` of course with that approach.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87004/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87004
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
