================
@@ -1018,9 +1019,9 @@ namespace cwg62 { // cwg62: 2.9
struct A {
struct { int n; } b;
};
- template<typename T> struct X {};
- template<typename T> T get() { return get<T>(); }
- template<typename T> int take(T) { return 0; }
+ template<typename T> struct X {}; // cxx98-note 6{{template parameter is
declared here}}
----------------
Endilll wrote:
> There was no discussion about these points I raised on that PR, was there any
> other discussions in other mediums, like Discourse?
No.
> I think the more important question is, do we need this amount of detail for
> the diagnostic messages of DR tests specifically, what makes them more
> special than the other tests in this case?
It happened with DR tests, because I've been spending a significant chunk of my
time in `clang/test/CXX/drs`, so I had a holistic view on everything in there,
and was willing to improve the status quo. If we as a community think that this
approach to `-verify` tests is good, it can be applied elsewhere too, but
that's an RFC material, I guess. I remember @erichkeane being sad that so
little tests use bookmarks, precisely for readability reasons for reviewers, so
I think there is support to write expected directives in a similar way outside
of DR tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126088
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
