On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Lenny Maiorani wrote: > Ted, > > I am finally getting around to implementing this and the checkNonNull > subchecker working for memcpy(), but the unit tests fail. This is because I > am putting out the string 'Null pointer argument in call to X' where X is the > name of the function. memcpy() has a variant defined as __memcpy_chk() so I > cannot properly have an expected output in the unit test file because it > changes. Is there a way to do this?
The user doesn't explicitly write __memcpy_chk(). Isn't that generated by codegen, or does that appear in the actual AST? > > Also, looking around at other checkers, this does not seem to be the > convention. Most of them simply describe the error in the description instead > of describing the error including the name of the function. I am going to > scrap this and instead attempt to make the description strings more > meaningful. This will probably take some significant re-writing though. The > architecture of the CStringChecker doesn't allow for some of the things I > want to do. That seems a reasonable approach to me as well. > > Does this all make sense? Absolutely. The whole point of the diagnostics is for the user to understand the issue. It's a fine balance between being succinct (but uninformative) and too verbose. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
