NoQ added a comment.
Ok, thanks, looking forward to it!
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/ctor-uninitialized-member.cpp:869
+void f44() {
+ ContainsUnionWithSimpleUnionTest2(); // xpected-warning{{1 uninitialized
field}}
+}
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Hmm, shouldn't it say "expected"? Do these tests actually work?
> Since unions are not yet supported by the CSA, this is only what would be
> expected from this checker to find in the future. I purposely wrote 'xpected'
> so tests wouldn't break.
Aha, okay, got it. The tradition is to say "// no-warning" and then put a FIXME
nearby saying that it should warn, how it should warn, probably why it should
warn, if it's non-obvious.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
