mizvekov added a comment. In D133874#3882350 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133874#3882350>, @erichkeane wrote:
> The test changes are a little bizarre, are there any better tests you can > write that shows this behavior? > > Also, at the 'end' of this patch set, we should make sure we have a detailed > release note. Well, this is mostly just a pure enabler, the rest of the patch series implement the uses for the Sugared lists. It's just that there were 3 places in SemaOverload where we are just diagnosing a deduction failure, and we could have just used the sugared lists there instead. Otherwise, these changes would not fit too well with any of the other patches, and I thought it would have been a bit unnecessary to split that tiny patch off. But I guess it's fair to say that the incidental testing is not covering those new uses very well, I will add some extra changes later. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133874 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
