================
@@ -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}}
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
I support the bookmarks, they are fine, sure let's use them more.
My concern is not about the bookmarks though, is about the way the tests are
written here, checking the whole
diagnostic sequence, but without actually checking it, and without any kind of
automated update.
I would be strongly against adopting this for the other tests, as if this were
a thing a while ago, this would have made many of my PRs unviable due to the
amount of manual test rework required.
That is not to say that I don't agree with the overall goal, I think we do need
to test for duplicated notes and things like that, but we should implement this
in tooling, being actually verified and not manually updated.
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
