Hi Steve, It seems most of the changes just remove unused variables after they are initialized. Isn't the initialization part of the test? For example, if the return type of `foo()` is specified to be a type that is BooleanConvertible then doesn't it make sense to test `bool unused = foo()`? I would rather just see the variables be used as opposed to their ommision. Even if using them just means `((void)unused)`.
/Eric On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Steve MacKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > I am about half-way through running the libc++ tests with scan-build. I > thought it good to submit a patch now for review for feedback rather than > later. > > All the bugs are of the "dead initialization" category. I tried to apply > the least intrusive fix as possible, which in all but a couple cases, > involved simply removing the unused lvalue from the statement. So the > coverage should remain the same, neither augmented nor diminished. > > I did encounter one scan-build false positive, it looks to have been > reported already (10862). I added a very simple repro to the bug report. (I > thought about adding a comment in these tests referencing the bug 10862, > but did not, let me know if I should). > > The status of the run is being tracked on my blog here: > http://stevemac123.wordpress.com/static-analysis-run/ > > clang version 3.6.0 (trunk 217475) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > > Command line used: > > can-build -k -V -analyze-headers clang++ -std=c++1y -stdlib=libc++ > > Thanks, > Steve MacKenzie > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
