baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/iterator-past-end.cpp:3
+
+template <typename T, typename Ptr, typename Ref> struct __iterator {
+ typedef __iterator<T, T *, T &> iterator;
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> > NoQ wrote:
> > > We should probably separate this into an #include-able header in
> > > `test/Analysis/Inputs/`.
> > >
> > > Also, there's always a bit of concern that it wasn't copy-pasted from a
> > > standard library implementation with an incompatible license such as
> > > (L)GPL. Which often happens when you do your best to emulate the normal
> > > way of defining things as closely as possible.
> > I did it now, but first one of my tests failed. I fixed the bug, but it
> > turned out that if I include these types and functions, no method or
> > function is checked, just conjured symbols are generated. Should including
> > not behave the same as copying the contents? This happened even if I
> > removed the pragma.
> Aha, i guess that's because we don't inline STL headers. See
> `mayInlineCXXStandardLibrary()` / `-analyzer-config c++-stdlib-inlining`.
>
> The lesson to learn here is that it's a good idea to make tests as similar to
> real code as possible. Because on real code, it would probably also not be
> inlined.
Actually, I always test first on real code, and it seemed to be inlined. But
now, even if I removed the pragma it was not inlined.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25660
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
