ABataev added a comment. In D69585#1825252 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69585#1825252>, @llunak wrote:
> In D69585#1825133 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69585#1825133>, @ABataev wrote: > > > I thought you were going to add an option or a flag to control the > > behavior? If so, just provide an option in tests to avoid triggering of the > > new behavior (except for declare_target... test and those 2 you modified > > already) and that's it. > > > It's not included in the latest version of the patch. As written above, I'm > reasonably sure I was mistaken about the need for a flag, and it should be ok > to simply do the change unconditionally. I can put the flag back just for the > purpose of the tests if you want, that'd certainly make handling of the tests > trivial, but then the tests wouldn't really test "normal" PCHs, so do you > really want that? Of course not. I was just wandering if you still going to use a flag. If you're not going to use it, then there is only one choice - update the tests. The tests are written so to test that emitting/including PCH does not break the codegen. So it should be tested. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69585/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69585 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
