Endill added a comment. >> We can do it the following way then: // dr405: yes \n // NB: also dup 218. > > That would be fine by me!
Which way should we handle this? I'd prefer to do it without test duplication, but making it clear for readers is a serious concern indeed. (Read on, I elaborate on this below.) >> What test for 405 is going to be if not a copy-and-paste of a part of 218 >> test? > > In terms of test *coverage*, no benefit. In terms of *implementation status*, > it makes it clear we considered the DR explicitly instead of leaving future > folks to wonder. Should we really try to meet an expectation that Clang developers haven't considered something as obvious as explicitly handling a DR not marked as duplicated or superseded officially? It doesn't seem a reasonable expectation to me, and at least my personal attitude have always been the opposite. To be fully honest here, I don't even remember myself how I came across CWG218, because I did this test back in spring. So marking it as a duplicate (one way or another) on the contrary seems very considerate handling. > CodeGen tests would be the approach I'd take; that's not actually testing the > backend behavior, that's still testing the frontend IR generation (which is > before the backend gets to start mutating/optimizing it). You're very much right. Thank you for reminding me of that! 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
