=?utf-8?q?Iñaki?= Amatria Barral <inaki.amat...@appentra.com>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94...@github.com>
================
@@ -17,10 +17,6 @@
// GCNO-LOCATION: "-coverage-notes-file={{.*}}/foo/bar.gcno"
// GCNO-LOCATION-REL: "-coverage-notes-file={{.*}}{{/|\\\\}}foo/bar.gcno"
-/// GCC allows PWD to change the paths.
-// RUN: %if system-linux %{ PWD=/proc/self/cwd %clang -### -c --coverage %s -o
foo/bar.o 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefix=PWD %s %}
-// PWD: "-coverage-notes-file=/proc/self/cwd/foo/bar.gcno"
"-coverage-data-file=/proc/self/cwd/foo/bar.gcda"
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
We should not be regressing Clang behavior like this -- at least not without
wider buy-in from the Clang community via an RFC. I worry that this change will
silently break build scripts relying on the current PWD behavior being
consistent between Clang and GCC.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94544
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
