vsapsai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/castexpr-basepathsize-threshold.cpp:8 +// recursive template instantiation limit. +// XFAIL: darwin && asan + ---------------- george.karpenkov wrote: > Do we actually want UNSUPPORTED here? We don't want to fail if ASAN stack > usage decreases? If ASAN stack usage decreases or template instantiation stack usage decreases, I'd like to know that and to remove XFAIL. My reason to prefer XFAIL over UNSUPPORTED is that currently the test fails due to specific implementation of Clang and ASAN, not due to conceptual incompatibility. But I don't have any evidence to show that my suggestion is actually better, so if my argument doesn't look convincing, most likely UNSUPPORTED would be better. https://reviews.llvm.org/D54132 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
