mboehme added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/TransferTest.cpp:2690
+ // `after_loop` is pruned by PruneTriviallyFalseEdges, so we only
should
+ // have `in_loop`.
+ ASSERT_TRUE(Results.empty());
----------------
This comment looks stale?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Analysis/FlowSensitive/TransferTest.cpp:2673
-
- EXPECT_EQ(BarVal, FooPointeeVal);
});
----------------
kinu wrote:
> mboehme wrote:
> > It's unfortuante that all of these checks have gone away. I think the test
> > was actually trying to test something.
> >
> > I'd suggest checking the environment at two different places:
> >
> > ```
> > void target(int *Foo) {
> > do {
> > int Bar = *Foo;
> > // [[in_loop]]
> > } while (true);
> > (void)0;
> > // [[after_loop]]
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > You can keep the existing checks for the `in_loop` environment and verify
> > that `Results` doesn't actually contain an environment for `after_loop`.
> Wdyt if we change this to exercise `do { } while (false)` instead (with the
> checks that we already have), and add a simple while (true) {}?
Thanks, good idea!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149640/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149640
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
