MaskRay added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/exception-spec-decay.cpp:1 -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fcxx-exceptions -fexceptions %s -triple=i686-unknown-linux -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %stdcxx_98- -fcxx-exceptions -fexceptions -Wno-dynamic-exception-spec %s -triple=i686-unknown-linux -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s typedef int Array[10]; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Should we drop the `%stdcxx_98-` entirely from tests and not have any `-std` > flag (e.g., no such flags tells lit to run the test in all language modes, > eventually)? The proposal is probably clean if we the majority of tests work with C++98, but I think we have accrued many tests which don't work with C++98 so we need directives like `%stdcxx_11-`. Since C++98 is actually uncommon now. I prefer explicit `%stdcxx_98-` to indicate a test works with C++98. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/override-layout.cpp:1-9 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -w -fdump-record-layouts-simple %s > %t.layouts +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -w -fdump-record-layouts-simple %s > %t.before +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -w -DPACKED= -DALIGNED16= -fdump-record-layouts-simple -foverride-record-layout=%t.layouts %s > %t.after // RUN: diff -u %t.before %t.after -// RUN: FileCheck %s < %t.after +// RUN: FileCheck --check-prefixes=CHECK,PRE17 %s < %t.after + +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++17 -w -fdump-record-layouts-simple %s > %t.layouts ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Pre 14? Post 17? Unfortunately, C++17 and C++20 have different behaviors. I haven't investigated why it is the case. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Layout/ms-x86-vtordisp.cpp:1-3 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -fno-rtti -fms-extensions -emit-llvm-only -triple i686-pc-win32 -fdump-record-layouts -fsyntax-only %s 2>&1 \ // RUN: | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -fno-rtti -fms-extensions -emit-llvm-only -triple x86_64-pc-win32 -fdump-record-layouts -fsyntax-only %s 2>/dev/null \ ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Is this test specific to C++14? This is similar to the previous -fdump-record-layouts test that the dump order is different across 14, 17, 20. I do now know whether there is something which should be improved to add the coverage. For now I assume it is not this patch's responsibility to address it. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/libstdcxx_is_pod_hack.cpp:1 -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++14 %s ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Is this one only for C++14 or should there be a range used instead? This is a hack for presumably older language dialects. Switched to a range. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131464/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131464 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
