steakhal added a comment.
I think I don't have anything left.
Let's see the numbers.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/sink-infeasible.c:37-48
+ /* The BASELINE passes these checks ('wrning' is used to avoid lit to match)
+ // The parent state is already infeasible, look at this contradiction:
+ clang_analyzer_eval(b > 0); // expected-wrning{{FALSE}}
+ clang_analyzer_eval(b <= 0); // expected-wrning{{FALSE}}
+ // Crashes with expensive checks.
+ if (b > 0) {
+ clang_analyzer_warnIfReached(); // no-warning, OK
----------------
martong wrote:
> steakhal wrote:
> > You could use a non-default check prefix.
> No I can't, because this test code in the comment is meaningful only in the
> baseline, I cannot run both clang versions from lit.
>
> So, actually there is no RUN line for these, it is here only to demonstrate
> what happens in the baseline.
Okay, why don't we drop these if these are only applicable to the baseline?
Should we really introduce 'stale' comments?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124674/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124674
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
