lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50901#1257651, @filcab wrote:
> Sorry about that. I’m away today but I don’t think you’ve answered my > questions about “why not support standalone UBSan in tests”. Sorry if I > missed the answers if you did. I did answer that question twice now :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D50902#inline-463926 >> Can't we simply not test on the SUMMARY line (test on the error line) and >> allow standalone too? I don't see what we gain by restricting the test. > > That summary line is the very essence of what we are checking in this test. > We can only do that in non-standalone builds, because standalone builds only > print generic undefined-behavior error name, while ubsan is coupled with some > other sanitizer, an actual error name is printed. > We have discussed this with you in > https://reviews.llvm.org/D48959#inline-429528 > Will review the latest tomorrow. > > Thank you, > > Filipe Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D50901 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
