On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Xinliang David Li via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: davidxl > Date: Sat Dec 12 22:45:49 2015 > New Revision: 255447 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=255447&view=rev > Log: > Revert r255445: adding a new test case > > Removed: > cfe/trunk/test/Profile/cxx-static.cpp > > Removed: cfe/trunk/test/Profile/cxx-static.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Profile/cxx-static.cpp?rev=255446&view=auto > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/test/Profile/cxx-static.cpp (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/test/Profile/cxx-static.cpp (removed) > @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ > -// REQUIRES: x86-registered-target > -// RUN: %clang -target i386-unknown-linux -std=c++11 -o %t.o -c > -no-integrated-as -fprofile-instr-generate %s > What does this test case test? It looks like it goes all the way through LLVM, which we usually don't do in Clang tests (& it doesn't test any output, which is usually a sign that something's not right - if this is meant to test that we no longer crash on some input, it should probably test that we produce the correct output in that situation. Simply "not crashing" doesn't really constrain the behavior to what we want) > - > -__attribute__((noinline)) static int bar() { return 1; } > - > -int foo(int a, int b) { > - auto Func = [](int a, int b) { return a > b; }; > - > - return Func(a, b) + bar(); > -} > - > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
