nathanchance added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Parser/asm-qualifiers.c:20
+
+void combinations(void) {
+ asm volatile inline("");
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> nathanchance wrote:
> > I'm probably being dense but what is intended to be tested differently
> > between `combinations` and `permutations`? I assume the order of the
> > qualifiers? Wouldn't it just be better to merge `combinations` into
> > `permutations` or was there some deeper reasoning for the
> > compartmentalization?
> `combinations` tests a combination of different `asm-qualifiers` together.
> `permutations` are just permutations of the combinations that have not been
> tested above. I may not even have my nomenclature correct. Shall I combine
> them?
I assume that you want permutations since you want to make sure that the
ordering does not matter, right? If you just care about combinations then
```
asm inline goto volatile("" ::::foo);
asm inline volatile goto("" ::::foo);
asm goto inline volatile("" ::::foo);
asm goto volatile inline("" ::::foo);
asm volatile goto inline("" ::::foo); // note, this one should probably be
added in permutations
asm volatile inline goto("" ::::foo);
```
could just be distilled down to one of those since they are the same
combination of qualifiers (combinations do not care about order). I would say
that moving `combinations` into `permutations` would be wise since
`permutations` tests the same thing that `combinations` does and more.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75563
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
