jcai19 marked 2 inline comments as done.
jcai19 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/android-cloexec-pipe2.cpp:52
+
+void e() {
+ int pipefd[2];
----------------
srhines wrote:
> I'm not all that familiar with writing clang-tidy-specific tests, but should
> these tests here denote that a diagnostic should NOT be issued? That is
> usually the convention in regular Clang tests, so I assume the test runner
> here should be equally supportive of ensuring that the contents passed
> through without any other diagnostics related to pipe2 and/or O_CLOEXEC.
That makes sense, and I have seem tests for similar checks with (e.g.
android-cloexec-open) and without (e.g. android-cloexec-accep4 and
android-cloexec-socket) additional CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT check. But based on the
Testing Checks section of
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/Contributing.html, it seems typically
CHECK-MASSAGES and CHECK-FIXES are sufficient for clang-tidy checks. Please let
me know what you think.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62049/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62049
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
