NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28955#652443, @ddcc wrote:
> When I was testing this patch, it was on top of both > https://reviews.llvm.org/D28952 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D28953. For > `malloc.c`, the change on line 1708 from `int` to `size_t` is necessary to > prevent a false positive warning at line 1710. We should have expected-warning on 64-bit targets (where `size_t` easily overflows `int`) and no-warning on 32-bit targets (where they are of the same size and the fix for the original issue https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16558 applies). I think we should have two run-lines for this test, with two concrete targets specified; it'd be great to actually have other tests in this file undergo such trial. https://reviews.llvm.org/D28955 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
