MrTrillian added a comment. In D154130#4481673 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130#4481673>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Adding a few more folks who are interested in lit changes to try to get the > review unstuck. > > FWIW, I worry about the subtlety of the `>` change because it's not entirely > clear to me when I'd need to use `%>t` in a test. I worry code reviewers will > miss this sort of thing and we'll only find out there's an issue when the > test fails for someone with a problematic path. Is there a rule of thumb we > should be following for its use? Thanks for the extra reviewers! 95% of the `%>t` are around clang modulemap files, because that code resolves real paths in C++ by design, so I can't avoid it. In fact I should rename `PREFIX_EXPANDED` to `MODULEMAP_PREFIX` and it should be much clearer. There are three cases where I didn't expect to need the expanded paths: `relative_include.m`, `case-insensitive-include-win.c` and `module-header-mismatches.m`. There may be a way to change the clang implementation to not need expanded paths, but that felt like a different investigation. I'm happy to consider alternative syntaxes to `%>t` too. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
