dblaikie added a comment. In D69778#2035006 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778#2035006>, @llunak wrote:
> In D69778#2032363 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778#2032363>, @dblaikie wrote: > > > So the original commit ( cbc9d22e49b4 > > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGcbc9d22e49b434b6ceb2eb94b67079d02e0a7b74> ) was > > reverted at some point, and now you're proposing recommitting it with a > > slight change? > > > > > Yes. > > > > Could you summarize (in the summary (which should hopefully be included in > > the commit message eventually)) the commit (include the hash), the revert > > (including the hash), reasons for revert and what's changed in this patch > > compared to the original commit that addresses the reasons for reverting? > > Done and see D74846 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74846> for details and the > exact change. > > (& ideally what extra testing was done on the newer version of the patch to > ensure the original issue or another like it would now be caught before > committing) > > > There's no testing besides checking that PR44953 no longer crashes. As said > in D74846 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74846>, I don't see how to do a test for > this, and if there's a problem with this patch then the same problem should > also exist with modules. Do you have a sense of the larger testing that PR44953 was reduced from? Have you tried compiling a non-trivial codebase (I assume you might've tested it with Open Office, for instance) - wonder why PR44953 didn't show up there? (perhaps just the construct needed to tickle the issue isn't common/isn't common in Open Office code, etc) and/or maybe see if the person who filed PR44953 might be able to test this version of the patch on the original codebase that bug was reduced from? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69778 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
