================ @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -xc %s \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection,deadcode.DeadStores \ +// RUN: -verify +// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -xc++ %s \ +// RUN: -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection,deadcode.DeadStores \ +// RUN: -verify -w ---------------- NagyDonat wrote:
> > I'm still interested of why are suppressing warnings. > > These are frontend warnings, not related to the changes in this PR. So I > think it would be unnecessary to check them. I support this approach -- I think focused tests that only `expect` warning of a certain concrete type are easier to understand. They are also more modular and easier to maintain: they don't need updates when the "other" incidentally checked warnings are changed. Of course the ideal situation is when the test code doesn't trigger other kinds of warnings; but when that is unavoidable (usually because a compiler warning can catch the simple cases of the bug that is checked by a static analyzer checker), then suppressing the other warning is a good solution. (I also did this in the tests of the checker security.ArrayBound.) However, perhaps it is better to use single `-Wno-whatever` flags are instead of blanket disabling all warnings. (Although the current solution is also acceptable IMO.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/187530 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
