AlexDenisov accepted this revision.
AlexDenisov added a reviewer: AlexDenisov.
AlexDenisov added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Committed, r245731.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12047
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@
rjmccall added a comment.
Sure, fine to me.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12047
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AlexDenisov added a comment.
s/which is important/which is might be important'/
;)
IMHO, the purpose of the test is not just prove that functionality is working
as expected, but also prevent from regression, I completely agree that this
test can be cleaned up a bit, but I'd cover at least two
modocache added a comment.
> Why do you think it's a cruft? Seems it's a bit more verbose than it should be
The verbosity is the cruft, in my opinion. Why spend thirty lines of code to
demonstrate behavior that could be demonstrated in just five?
> but what is missing in your test is inheritan
AlexDenisov added a subscriber: AlexDenisov.
AlexDenisov added a comment.
Why do you think it's a cruft? Seems it's a bit more verbose than it should be,
but what is missing in your test is inheritance, which is important.
P.S. I think the code for the initial test was just extracted from a real
modocache created this revision.
modocache added a reviewer: cfe-commits.
The tests that verify that accessing a property without using the result
emits a warning were needlessly complicated. Remove several layers of
abstraction to make the tests much simpler to read and reason about.
http://revi
