dexonsmith added a comment. In D69090#1713983 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69090#1713983>, @kousikk wrote:
> Thanks for the comment @jkorous. > > > I think you could've just used CHECK-DAG to fix the tests. It *might* be a > > bit more robust. Although just reordering checks seems perfectly fine too. > > https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-check-dag-directive. > > Using std::set here sounds reasonable to me but I'd like @arphaman to be > > aware of this. > > Thanks for pointing me to it - I have a minor preference towards a `sorted` > order of outputs vs `order in which we visit the files`. I think a sorted > order is much more easy to reason about for a client. Having said that, > @arphaman what do you think? If you and Jan both feel that we should maintain > the current order, I'll stick to that and not change `Dependencies` to `set`. Sorting seems reasonable to me, perhaps behind an option (I'll leave that up to others). But you don't need a `std::set` for this, just run `llvm::sort` and `std::unique` once the dependencies are collected. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69090/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69090 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
