On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> This fixes a currently failing test by using the >> RangeConstraintManager. > > These aren't broken tests; their just testing expected behavior. The > expected behavior is that BasicConstraintManager doesn't handle these cases > well.
The result is the test fails, so how are they not broken? > >> >> Index: test/Analysis/null-deref-ps.c >> =================================================================== >> --- test/Analysis/null-deref-ps.c (revision 64627) >> +++ test/Analysis/null-deref-ps.c (working copy) >> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >> -// RUN: clang -analyze -std=gnu99 -checker-simple -verify %s && >> -// RUN: clang -analyze -std=gnu99 -checker-simple >> -analyzer-store-region -analyzer-purge-dead=false -verify %s && >> -// RUN: clang -analyze -std=gnu99 -checker-cfref >> -analyzer-store-region -verify %s >> +// RUN: clang -analyze -analyzer-range-constraints -std=gnu99 >> -checker-simple -verify %s && >> +// RUN: clang -analyze -analyzer-range-constraints -std=gnu99 >> -checker-simple -analyzer-store-region -analyzer-purge-dead=false >> -verify %s && >> +// RUN: clang -analyze -analyzer-range-constraints -std=gnu99 >> -checker-cfref -analyzer-store-region -verify %s > > Please don't remove the RUN lines that invoke BasicConstraintManager. We > still wanted that tested. As we discussed via IM, please add the separate > RUN lines and #ifdef logic for the alternate warnings (some comments in the > test case are also good to explain the divergent behavior). > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
