Modify how the -verify flag works. Currently, the verification string and
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@146619 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/Analysis/retain-release-path-notes.m b/test/Analysis/retain-release-path-notes.m
index f9676d1..84ddcae 100644
--- a/test/Analysis/retain-release-path-notes.m
+++ b/test/Analysis/retain-release-path-notes.m
@@ -104,12 +104,12 @@
}
CFTypeRef CFCopyRuleViolation () {
- CFTypeRef object = CFGetSomething(); // expected-note{{Call to function 'CFGetSomething' returns a Core Foundation object with a +0 retain counte}}
+ CFTypeRef object = CFGetSomething(); // expected-note{{Call to function 'CFGetSomething' returns a Core Foundation object with a +0 retain count}}
return object; // expected-warning{{Object with a +0 retain count returned to caller where a +1 (owning) retain count is expected}} expected-note{{Object returned to caller with a +0 retain count}} expected-note{{Object with a +0 retain count returned to caller where a +1 (owning) retain count is expected}}
}
CFTypeRef CFGetRuleViolation () {
- CFTypeRef object = CFCreateSomething(); // expected-warning{{leak}} expected-note{{Call to function 'CFCreateSomething' returns a Core Foundation object with a +1 retain counte}}
+ CFTypeRef object = CFCreateSomething(); // expected-warning{{leak}} expected-note{{Call to function 'CFCreateSomething' returns a Core Foundation object with a +1 retain count}}
return object; // expected-note{{Object returned to caller as an owning reference (single retain count transferred to caller)}} expected-note{{Object leaked: object allocated and stored into 'object' is return from a function whose name ('CFGetRuleViolation') does not contain 'Copy' or 'Create'. This violates the naming convention rules given the Memory Management Guide for Core Foundation}}
}