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:
> jcai19 wrote:
> > 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.
> If you look in test/clang-tidy/android-cloexec-creat.cpp, you will see that
> there are "CHECK-MESSAGES-NOT" checks that ensure the diagnostic is not
> issued in correct cases. You can put the checks on lines 39, 58, and 67,
> which will ensure that there are no additional diagnostics being generated.
Sounds good! Thanks for the reference.
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
