Eugene.Zelenko added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16786#342074, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16786#342072, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > I think proper solution will be to create tests for included files ot the > > fly, bu renaming main test to .h and creating dummy source file. But this > > is task for scripts wizards :-) > > > I'm not certain if that's the proper solution or not, but I'm also not > comfortable with committing nontrivial changes without an accompanying test > case. either. I would recommend writing a simple test include that would fail > before applying your patch (and succeeds after) and go that route, unless you > want to try your hand at the scripting approach. My point is that all checks should be test in similar situations. It's not reasonable to introduce special checks only for selected ones. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D16786 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
