> On Jul 13, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Gábor Horváth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Anna, > > Thank you for the review. I have tweaked the test, so it no longer requires > the error reporting tweak that is not done yet to pass. I have also added > some high level comments to some files, if you think some information is > lacking I will add them in the next iteration as well. The BugReporter patch > is now separated into a different patch. > > > On 11 July 2014 18:02, Anna Zaks <[email protected]> wrote: > > For example, modeling functions should allow you to find bugs and suppress > false positives outside of those functions. I would suggest adding a few of > those tests first. > > > How are the false positives suppressed? I did not find any resource on that. > Found some analyzer attributes but I did not find them suitable for this > purpuse at the first glance. But I think once the locations that are in a > model file are omitted from the report path, the regular methods for > suppressing false positives should work (and I will definitely add test case > to ensure this once it is done). >
What I meant is that it is possible to construct a test where ability to model a function would eliminate a false positive. This would be another way to test your patch without worrying about BugReporter. > Thanks, > Gábor > <api_modeling.patch><bugreporter.patch>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
