aaron.ballman added a comment. In D69292#1722162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292#1722162>, @thakis wrote:
> This is imho basic enough that it doesn't need a test. A test for this > doesn't add any value that I can see. The value comes from having an explicit test to demonstrate the behavior is not an accident, so when someone asks "is this behavior intentional?" the answer is more obvious from the test. In D69292#1722102 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292#1722102>, @rtrieu wrote: > In D69292#1719093 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292#1719093>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > I agree with the changes and want to see this go in, but it needs a test > > case. > > > Would this be better if we had a specific test to verify all the warning > groups in -Wall? I could see something using diagtool to list and check all > the warnings. Yeah, I think that would be better but I don't think the full -Wall testing is necessary for this change. I was mostly hoping for a trivial test that shows -Wall is sufficient to enable at least one of the tautological checks that was previously disabled. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
