Endill added a comment. > 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
Does it mean that duplication with cross-references is the best way to handle this even hypothetically? As opposed to, say, new notation for make_cxx_dr_status like `// dr405: dup 405 unofficial`. > Nah, that wouldn't be worth the hassle, even if you got people to agree on > the duplicated nature Sad but definitely not unexpected. > 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" Thanks for mentioning this! Could definitely be used as a last resort. I'll try it for some of the subsequent CWG test. Observing front-end behavior via back-end still doesn't feel good, though. I believe debug facilities should be improved to contain as much DR checks as possible at source and AST level. 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
