george.karpenkov accepted this revision. george.karpenkov added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/castexpr-basepathsize-threshold.cpp:8 +// recursive template instantiation limit. +// XFAIL: darwin && asan + ---------------- vsapsai wrote: > 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. Either one works for me. https://reviews.llvm.org/D54132 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
