steakhal added a comment.
Internally we analyzed 16 projects with this patch-stack. No reports were
changed!
Now we don't crash on macro expansions in our test set, yey.
I've checked a few expansions and seemed to be readable enough.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Analysis/Inputs/expected-plists/plist-macros-with-expansion.cpp.plist:148
<key>name</key><string>SET_PTR_VAR_TO_NULL</string>
- <key>expansion</key><string>ptr = 0</string>
+ <key>expansion</key><string>ptr =0</string>
</dict>
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> martong wrote:
> > martong wrote:
> > > I wonder how much added value do we have with these huge and clumsy plist
> > > files... We already have the concise unittests, which are quite self
> > > explanatory. I'd just simply delete these plist files.
> > Perhaps in the test cpp file we should just execute a FileCheck for the
> > expansions. We are totally not interested to check the whole contents of
> > the plist, we are interested only to see if there were expansions.
> We do need some plist tests to ensure that the correct plist format is
> emitted. How much of those do we need might be up for debate.
It's certainly a pain to keep all the locations in sync with the code.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93224
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
