================
@@ -96,3 +96,19 @@ void test_snprintf6() {
char b[4] = {0};
snprintf(a, sizeof(a), "%s", b); // no-warning
}
+
+
+void memcpy(int dst, int src, size_t size); // expected-warning{{incompatible
redeclaration of library function 'memcpy'}} expected-note{{'memcpy' is a
builtin with type 'void *(void *, const void *, __size_t)' (aka 'void *(void *,
const void *, unsigned long)')}}
+void test_memcpy_proxy() {
+ memcpy(42, 42, 42);
----------------
NagyDonat wrote:
```suggestion
memcpy(42, 42, 42); // no-crash
```
Tests that validate that some code fragment no longer causes crashes are
usually annotated by `// no-crash` at the point where the crash occurred
previously. This has no significance in the test automation (a crash always
means test failure), but helps the human readers understand why that testcase
was included in the test suite.
This tradition is not always followed and the commit would be perfectly
acceptable eve without these marks, but if it isn't a trouble, I'd suggest
adding `// no-crash` both here and in the other two testcases.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160511
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
