aaron.ballman added a comment. In D98635#2626485 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98635#2626485>, @whisperity wrote:
> In D98635#2626464 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98635#2626464>, @whisperity > wrote: > >> Strange because I specifically ran both `check-clang` **and** >> `check-clang-tools` locally, but will look into this. > > Turns out there is a `check-clang-extra-unit` too, and it looks like those > test TUs either didn't compile for me at all (as in, it was not commanded to > compile them), or I messed something up during the rebase. > (But TIL we finally have some semblance of pre-merge checking instead of > always reverting commits! 😋) Yes, it's actually been catching some useful things lately, too, which is nice! > What's the outlook on the executive decision... changing the **schema** in > `libToolingCore`... is such even allowed? I'm venturing into parts unknown > here. I think @alexfh will have to make the final call, but I think the changes here look reasonable. I have no idea if we've made stability guarantees about the schema though. I'm giving my LGTM, but not accepting the review because I'd like to hear from Alex before this lands. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
