On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Richard Trieu wrote: > Hey Chad, > > I am unfamiliar with how these cases are set up. What are the flags that are > used to run this and what is the expected behavior from this test? It looks > like the dg-warning marks which lines are allowed to have warnings, and not > others. Is this correct? > > I think the problem might be because my patch introduces a warning at lines > 32 & 33, which aren't expecting a warning. One is a comparison of NULL and a > function. The other is a comparison of an array and NULL. Is this warning > appropriate here or should these cases be excluded from the warning?
The best way to find this out (I recently just learned :) is to check out http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/clang-tests/trunk and look at the top level readme, -Chris > > Richard. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry about that! I see how that could make debugging difficult. > > The reported error is: > g++.old-deja/g++.other/null1.C (test for excess errors) > > Chad > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> Please don't post links to the internal Apple build bots, post the text of >> the regression? =] Then we can make progress on which of the several test >> cases in that file is misbehaving. >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Chad Rosier <[email protected]> wrote: >> See: >> http://smooshlab.apple.com:8013/builders/gccTestSuite_clang-x86_64-darwin10-RA__c%2B%2B/builds/854 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
