kadircet accepted this revision.
kadircet added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
thanks, lgtm!
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/DiagnosticsTests.cpp:259
+ class T{$explicit[[]]$constructor[[T]](int a);};
+
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > ah, should've kept reading before leaving the comment above. feel free to
> > ignore that (or just drop this test and rely only on clang diagnostics for
> > checking that behaviour?)
> This really belongs in the diagnostic ranges test, so switched to a different
> diag as you suggested.
nit: is this testing anything useful now? maybe just drop it?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105679/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105679
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
