On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> > wrote: > > alexfh added a comment. > > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12081#234614, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > >> While working on r246209, one of the build bots ran into an issue > (commented below) that has me slightly perplexed. The build break can be > found at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fast/builds/30516 > > > > > > Seems to be related to the -std=c++98 in the test? > > That's what I figured as well. > > > > >> What's also strange is that I could not reproduce that failure locally > (MSVC 2015 debug build, Windows 10)... > > > > > > That's strange. Maybe there's some command-line argument parsing magic > when targeting windows? > > That's what I'm slightly more concerned by. I will investigate in the > morning on my machine and see what I come up with. > > > > > > > ================ > > Comment at: test/clang-tidy/modernize-use-nullptr-basic.cpp:2 > > @@ +1,3 @@ > > +// RUN: $(dirname %s)/check_clang_tidy.sh %s modernize-use-nullptr %t > -- \ > > +// RUN: -std=c++98 -Wno-non-literal-null-conversion > > +// REQUIRES: shell > > ---------------- > > aaron.ballman wrote: > >> Sorry for bringing this up later, but how is this test supposed to > work? nullptr is not a valid C++98 construct, and so I don't think we > should be recommending fixes to use nullptr in this case. Is there a reason > this test case is using -std=c++98 instead of -std=c++11? > > Looks like a mistake. It should be -std=c++11. But while the check > wasn't looking at LangOpts, it didn't make any difference, because we don't > try to compile the fixed code. > > Okay, glad it's just a mistake. When I recommit my patch, I'll correct > this RUN line. > Apparently, I was wrong. Some of the constructs in the test file fail to compile in c++11. So maybe we should allow the check to run in c++98 mode: to migrate the constructs that otherwise wouldn't compile. It still makes sense to require C++, I guess. > > Thanks! > > ~Aaron > > > > > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D12081 > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
