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
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
