[libcxx] r216317 - Add return statement to a test class's assignment operator. Defect found by Coverity Scan.

[Chandler Carruth]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
wrote:

> Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> writes:
> >> 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 waste.
> >
> > 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" incorrectly.  What if this test was
> > "passing" because of the missing return?
>
> I suspect the right answer here is to rework the libc++ testing
> infrastructure so that it actually checks *why* the test failed in some
> way, rather than the current "Exit code 1? Great!" approach.
>
> I guess this is tricky if we want to be able to test libc++ with
> different compilers or avoid version locking it too tightly with clang,
> though.
>

I would really like to see more detailed testing. Maybe we could have
optional checks on the text of the output with FileCheck (or clang's
-verify) when using clang, and otherwise fall back on exit status?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140826/3a3c766c/attachment.html>