nemanjai marked an inline comment as done.
nemanjai added inline comments.

================
Comment at: compiler-rt/test/msan/chained_origin_empty_stack_npm.cpp:4
+// this test.
+// RUN: %clangxx_msan -fsanitize-memory-track-origins=2 \
+// RUN:     -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -O3 %s -o %t && \
----------------
nemanjai wrote:
> vitalybuka wrote:
> > Why not to add RUN: section with -fexperimental-new-pass-manager into 
> > original tests?
> I just felt that this is a simpler way forward for a couple of reasons:
> 1. Once the default switches, it is a very obvious change to just delete 
> these files rather than digging through the code inside the existing ones
> 2. Many of the tests actually contain the testing that is split up into 
> multiple steps so I would have to duplicate all the steps for the NPM vs. 
> default builds:
> - compile/link
> - run with one option set and FileCheck
> - run with another option set and FileCheck
> - rinse/repeat
> (example: chained_origin_limits.cpp)
> 
> But of course, if there are strong objections to this approach, I can 
> certainly go the other way.
Seems Phabricator reformatted what I wrote here. Points 3, 4, 5, 6 were 
supposed to be sub-bullets for 2.
Basically, I tried to describe that in the mentioned test case, I would have to 
replicate a number of subsequent steps for each `RUN` directive that invokes 
the compiler.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D77249/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D77249



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to