[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D139095#3966626 , @Endill wrote: >>> We can do it the following way then: // dr405: yes \n // NB: also dup 218. >> >> That would be fine by me! > > Which way should we handle this? I'd prefer to do it without test > dupl

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Endill added a comment. >> We can do it the following way then: // dr405: yes \n // NB: also dup 218. > > That would be fine by me! Which way should we handle this? I'd prefer to do it without test duplication, but making it clear for readers is a serious concern indeed. (Read on, I elaborate o

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D139095#3964181 , @Endill wrote: >> I don't think we should mark it as a dup -- we want the status in our tests >> to match the status on the official document, otherwise things get confusing. > > We can do it the follow

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Endill added a comment. > I think this is perfectly fine to have a duplicated test case, I agree with > Aaron, we should not invent duplicated status ourselves. > Adding a comment in the test like "Note: this test is identical to the one > for CWG405" would be a good idea Does it mean that dupl

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

cor3ntin added a comment. In D139095#3964181 , @Endill wrote: > So I'd like to raise a couple of questions: > > 1. What test for 405 is going to be if not a copy-and-paste of a part of 218 > test? I think this is perfectly fine to have a duplicated test

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Endill added a comment. > I don't think we should mark it as a dup -- we want the status in our tests > to match the status on the official document, otherwise things get confusing. We can do it the following way then: `// dr405: yes \n // NB: also dup 218`. Do I understand correctly that supers

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D139095#3963334 , @Endill wrote: > Is it fine that we're marking CWG405 as a duplicate even though it's not > mentioned as such in official publication? I don't think we should mark it as a dup -- we want the status in

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Endill added a comment. Is it fine that we're marking CWG405 as a duplicate even though it's not mentioned as such in official publication? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095 ___

[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Endill created this revision. Endill added a reviewer: clang-language-wg. Herald added a project: All. Endill requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095 Files: