dblaikie added a comment. In D70524#1770330 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524#1770330>, @awpandey wrote:
> > It looks to me like there are a few tests for unspecified_type already: > > > > $ grep -r unspecified_type llvm/test > > llvm/test/Assembler/debug-info.ll:; CHECK-NEXT: !7 = !DIBasicType(tag: > > DW_TAG_unspecified_type, name: "decltype(nullptr)") > > llvm/test/Assembler/debug-info.ll:!8 = !DIBasicType(tag: > > DW_TAG_unspecified_type, name: "decltype(nullptr)") > > ... > @dblaikie, are you suggesting me to modify some of these existing test cases > to include `auto return` functionality as well. Nah - I'm suggesting that the existing coverage is sufficient and there's no need for an LLVM test for "auto return" - the specific string name used in a DW_TAG_unspecified_type is not parsed or processed in any way by LLVM - it's produced verbatim into the output (in the name of the unspecified_type) so there's no need to test with different strings (this would be akin to having a printf test case for "decltype(nullptr)" and then adding a different test case for printing "auto" - they're not meaningfully different test cases for printf (it's highly unlikely that a bug exists that can print one and not the other - and why those two strings in particular, among all the possible strings you could print that should be equally well handled?)). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
