Here is the first few. They have to be applied in order, or the changes in the test will conflict. And hopefully the naming is appealing enough. :)
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Ahmed Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 6, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote: >> >> I'm looking into adding flags for the various warnings without them and was >> wondering what the bar is in terms of test cases? It seems like existing >> flags don't have explicit test cases and in some cases neither do the >> warnings. >> >> Good questions. These are two separate issues. It's simply bad that we >> have warnings that aren't being tested at all (behaviorally). For those we >> should continue to add test cases to improve our coverage of the compiler's >> behavior. >> For testing coverage of warning flags, the only thing you could really test >> from a behavior perspective is whether passing -W/-Wno<warning> >> enables/disables the warning (or use pragmas that accomplish the same >> thing). Many warnings are on by default, so many of the tests would need to >> go for the "disable warning" route. We are pretty confident that the >> general warning suppression/enabling mechanism works (it is well tested), so >> we only really need to add specific tests like these for warnings where it >> is clear we want to tease out some warning from a larger class of warnings >> and have the ability to disable it (e.g., a user explicitly requested this >> functionality). >> So, for testing whether or not a warning has a flag, we have >> test/Misc/warning-flags.c. Essentially we run diagtool to list all the >> warnings that are not covered by a flag. Whenever a warning that was >> previously not covered by a flag gets a flag, this test needs to be updated >> (i.e., remove the entry). That's usually sufficient in my opinion to test >> that a warning is covered by a flag. > > Thanks, that's what I thought. > > -- > Ahmed Charles >
0003-Place-diagnostic-backslash_newline_space-under-the-W.patch
Description: Binary data
0004-Place-diagnostics-null_in_string-null_in_char-and-nu.patch
Description: Binary data
0005-Place-renamed-diagnostic-ext_charize_microsoft-under.patch
Description: Binary data
0007-Place-diagnostic-ext_dollar_in_identifier-under-the-.patch
Description: Binary data
0008-Place-diagnostics-ext_c99_array_usage-ext_c99_compou.patch
Description: Binary data
0009-Place-diagnostic-ext_auto_storage_class-under-the-Wa.patch
Description: Binary data
0010-Place-diagnostics-ext_catch_incomplete_ref-and-ext_c.patch
Description: Binary data
0011-Place-diagnostics-ext_flexible_array_in_array-and-ex.patch
Description: Binary data
0012-Place-diagnostic-warn_delete_incomplete-under-the-Wd.patch
Description: Binary data
0013-Place-diagnostics-warn_c_kext-warn_drv_assuming_mflo.patch
Description: Binary data
0014-Place-diagnostics-warn_ucn_escape_too_large-and-warn.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
