================ @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -verify=cxx20,expected,reorder -Wno-c99-designator -Werror=reorder-init-list -Wno-initializer-overrides // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -verify=cxx20,expected,override -Wno-c99-designator -Wno-reorder-init-list -Werror=initializer-overrides // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -verify=cxx20,expected -Wno-c99-designator -Wno-reorder-init-list -Wno-initializer-overrides -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -verify=cxx20,expected,wmissing -Wmissing-field-initializers -Wno-c99-designator -Wno-reorder-init-list -Wno-initializer-overrides +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -verify=cxx20,expected,wmissing -Wmissing-field-initializers -Wno-c99-designator -Wno-reorder-init-list -Wno-initializer-overrides -D NON_PEDANTIC ---------------- hnrklssn wrote:
Imo it's clearer to unconditionally compile the same code for each test case, and instead introduce another `-verify` prefix for the diagnostics that aren't emitted by this invocation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70829 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
