[libcxx] r216317 - Add return statement to a test class's assignment operator. Defect found by Coverity Scan.
eric at efcs.ca
Sun Aug 24 14:52:01 PDT 2014
> I don't think we should spend our time fixing warnings (coverity or
otherwise) is code that is supposed to produce compile errors... seems a
I don't want to revive this thread, but I really want to address this.
Its *more* important to fix problems in tests that are supposed to fail to
compile than any other test. Its super easy to have code fail to compile.
What we are trying to test is that it fails for the *right* reason. Any
other errors, such as the one in this patch, could cause the test to "pass"
What if this test was "passing" because of the missing return?
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
> If we want to enable warnings and use static analysis tools these sort of
> errors simply need to be fixed to prevent noise.
> On Aug 23, 2014 7:06 PM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <
>> jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> Wait a second, this test is *supposed* to be a compile failure, but not
>>> for the reason I originally thought. It's testing that unique_ptr requires
>>> the deleter have a public default constructor. Because it fails to
>>> compile, '-Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Werror' won't help us here :(
>> I don't think we should spend our time fixing warnings (coverity or
>> otherwise) is code that is supposed to produce compile errors... seems a
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits