================
@@ -2928,6 +2928,54 @@ TEST_P(UncheckedStatusOrAccessModelTest,
PointerEqualityCheck) {
)cc");
}
+TEST_P(UncheckedStatusOrAccessModelTest, Emplace) {
+ ExpectDiagnosticsFor(R"cc(
+#include "unchecked_statusor_access_test_defs.h"
+
+ struct Foo {
+ Foo(int);
+ };
+
+ void target(absl::StatusOr<Foo> sor, int value) {
+ sor.emplace(value);
+ sor.value();
+ }
+ )cc");
+ ExpectDiagnosticsFor(R"cc(
+#include "unchecked_statusor_access_test_defs.h"
+
+ struct Foo {
+ Foo(std::initializer_list<int>, int);
+ };
+
+ void target(absl::StatusOr<Foo> sor, int value) {
+ sor.emplace({1, 2, 3}, value);
+ sor.value();
+ }
+ )cc");
+ ExpectDiagnosticsFor(R"cc(
+#include "unchecked_statusor_access_test_defs.h"
+
+ void target(bool b) {
+ STATUSOR_INT sor;
+ bool sor_ok = sor.ok();
+ if (b)
+ sor.emplace(42);
+ else if (sor_ok)
+ sor.value();
----------------
jvoung wrote:
Hmm, the `emplace` happens in a disjoint branch from the `value()` access, so
seems like it wouldn't directly test the emplace.
Did you mean to test if there is a control flow join (if not ok, do the
emplace, if ok, no need to emplace, then after the branches access the value)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/163876
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
