r235190 - Remove the assertion as it was useless and broken.
jordan_rose at apple.com
Tue Apr 28 20:57:53 PDT 2015
> On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:37 , Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org <mailto:sylvestre at debian.org>> wrote:
>> On 17/04/2015 15:33, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote:
>>>> Author: sylvestre
>>>> Date: Fri Apr 17 08:21:39 2015
>>>> New Revision: 235190
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=235190&view=rev
>>>> Remove the assertion as it was useless and broken.
>>>> Enforcing the assert caused the following tests to fail:
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__bstring.c
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__comparison-implicit-casts.cpp
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__malloc-interprocedural.c
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__malloc.c
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__redefined_system.c
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__string.c
>>>> Clang :: Analysis__weak-functions.c
>>> While the assert may have been broken, I am concerned that the
>>> author's assumptions are being violated in some way. Can the original
>>> code author weigh in on whether that assert is truly useless or not?
>>> That appears to be Jordan in this case, according to a quick svn
>> Yes, sorry about that. I fixed it quickly and maybe not using the best way.
>> However, the incorrect assertion (fixed r235188) has been there for a few years.
> I agree that this is an improvement over broken bots and an assert
> that behaves differently in debug vs release mode. ;-) I just want to
> make sure we double-check that this is the right move long-term.
I wrote this a long time ago, but the intent was that you wouldn't get to this point without setting CurrentFunctionDescription for your specific caller. I haven't actually looked at how it's being called now, though, since CStringChecker is a beta checker.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits