Fix test

Author: steakhal

clang/test/Analysis/cxx23-assume-attribute.cpp

@@ -1,46 +1,58 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++23 -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify %s
+// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -std=c++23 -triple x86_64-pc-linux-gnu \
+// RUN:   -analyzer-checker=core,debug.ExprInspection -verify %s
 
 template <typename T> void clang_analyzer_dump(T);
 template <typename T> void clang_analyzer_value(T);
 
 int ternary_in_builtin_assume(int a, int b) {
-
   __builtin_assume(a > 10 ? b == 4 : b == 10);
 
-  clang_analyzer_value(a); // we should have 2 dumps here.  expected-warning{{[-2147483648, 10]}} expected-warning{{[11, 2147483647]}}
-  clang_analyzer_dump(b); // This should be either 4 or 10. expected-warning{{4}} expected-warning{{10}}
+  clang_analyzer_value(a);
+  // expected-warning@-1 {{[-2147483648, 10]}}
+  // expected-warning@-2 {{[11, 2147483647]}}
+
+  clang_analyzer_dump(b); // expected-warning{{4}} expected-warning{{10}}
+
   if (a > 20) {
-    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 100); // expecting 104 expected-warning{{104}}
+    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 100); // expected-warning {{104}}
     return 2;
   }
   if (a > 10) {
-    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 200); // expecting 204 expected-warning{{204}}
+    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 200); // expected-warning {{204}}
     return 1;
   }
-  clang_analyzer_dump(b + 300); // expecting 310 expected-warning{{310}}
+  clang_analyzer_dump(b + 300); // expected-warning {{310}}
   return 0;
 }
 
 // From: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116462#issuecomment-2517853226
 int ternary_in_assume(int a, int b) {
   // FIXME notes
   // Currently, if this test is run without the core.builtin.Builtin checker, the above function with the __builtin_assume behaves identically to the following test
-  // i.e. calls to `clang_analyzer_dump` result in "extraneous"  prints of the SVal(s) `reg_$2<int > b ...`
+  // i.e. calls to `clang_analyzer_dump` result in "extraneous"  prints of the SVal(s) `reg<int b> ...`
   // as opposed to 4 or 10
   // which likely implies the Program State(s) did not get narrowed.
   // A new checker is likely needed to be implemented to properly handle the expressions within `[[assume]]` to eliminate the states where `b` is not narrowed.
 
   [[assume(a > 10 ? b == 4 : b == 10)]];
-  clang_analyzer_value(a); // we should have 2 dumps here.  expected-warning{{[-2147483648, 10]}} expected-warning{{[11, 2147483647]}}
-  clang_analyzer_dump(b); // This should be either 4 or 10. expected-warning{{4}} expected-warning{{10}} FIXME: expected-warning{{reg_$2<int b>}}
+  clang_analyzer_value(a);
+  // expected-warning@-1 {{[-2147483648, 10]}}
+  // expected-warning@-2 {{[11, 2147483647]}}
+
+  clang_analyzer_dump(b); // expected-warning {{4}} expected-warning {{10}}
+  // expected-warning-re@-1 {{reg_${{[0-9]+}}<int b>}} FIXME: We shouldn't have this dump.
+
   if (a > 20) {
-    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 100); // expecting 104 expected-warning{{104}} FIXME: expected-warning{{(reg_$2<int b>) + 100}}
+    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 100); // expected-warning {{104}}
+    // expected-warning-re@-1 {{(reg_${{[0-9]+}}<int b>) + 100}} FIXME: We shouldn't have this dump.
     return 2;
   }
   if (a > 10) {
-    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 200); // expecting 204 expected-warning{{204}} FIXME: expected-warning{{(reg_$2<int b>) + 200}}
+    clang_analyzer_dump(b + 200); // expected-warning {{204}}
+    // expected-warning-re@-1 {{(reg_${{[0-9]+}}<int b>) + 200}} FIXME: We shouldn't have this dump.
     return 1;
   }
-  clang_analyzer_dump(b + 300); // expecting 310 expected-warning{{310}} FIXME: expected-warning{{(reg_$2<int b>) + 300}}
+  clang_analyzer_dump(b + 300); // expected-warning {{310}}
+  // expected-warning-re@-1 {{(reg_${{[0-9]+}}<int b>) + 300}} FIXME: We shouldn't have this dump.
   return 0;
 }