martong marked 3 inline comments as done.
martong added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp:1013
+ addToFunctionSummaryMap(
+ "__buf_size_arg_constraint_mul",
+ Summary(ArgTypes{ConstVoidPtrTy, SizeTy, SizeTy}, RetType{IntTy},
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > Why do we need these test functions? Above I saw `fread` as an example
> > > that requires this capability. Wouldn't it be better to make its summary
> > > utilize the new feature and use `fread` in tests? Do I miss something?
> > Yeah, we could test that with `fread`. However, in `fread` there are
> > multiple argument constraints for the different args. I wanted a test
> > function which has this arg constraint in an isolation. In my opinion it is
> > good to have small isolated unit tests that test only one functionality.
> > Also if we decide to remove or modify `fread`s summary for any reason, then
> > we should modify this test too, on the other hand, with this test function
> > it is not a problem.
> I see. The plan in the future is to split this checker up a bit. In this case
> I'd like to have these test functions in a separate test checker. Until then
> I'm fine with a FIXME/TODO.
They are already enabled only if a test checker is enabled, check out the
enclosing `if` of this block:
```
if (ChecksEnabled[CK_StdCLibraryFunctionsTesterChecker]) {
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77148/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D77148
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
