cor3ntin added a comment. In D139095#3964181 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095#3964181>, @Endill wrote:
> So I'd like to raise a couple of questions: > > 1. What test for 405 is going to be if not a copy-and-paste of a part of 218 > test? I think this is perfectly fine to have a duplicated test case, I agree with Aaron, we should not invent duplicated status ourselves. Adding a comment in the test like "Note: this test is identical to the one for CWG405" would be a good idea > 2. Is it possible to change status of 405 in the official document? Or get a > technical rationale for it not being a duplicate of 218. Nah, that wouldn't be worth the hassle, even if you got people to agree on the duplicated nature > As a side note, I don't feel too comfortable testing name lookup via side > effects like diagnostics. `#pragma clang __debug dump` is good, but not > powerful enough to test ADL. Are those the only options we currently have? You could do a codegen tests and check that the correct function gets called using its mangled name. There are examples in the drs tests already, grep for "// CHECK: call" Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
