lebedev.ri added a comment. In D62977#1559637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559637>, @astrelni wrote:
> In D62977#1559628 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559628>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > It //sounds// correct, but i don't see accompanying test changes, so i > > can't be sure. > > > The tests as they are cover the positive case in that they would not show > warning or fixes if we didn't find the replacements. Yep In D62977#1559637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559637>, @astrelni wrote: > The only way to test the negative is to make a second test with a second set > of mock googletest headers that declare things in the v1.8 way. Is this what > you would prefer? If that is what it takes to get the test coverage, i suppose so. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
