stuij added a comment. > If this cannot be reproduced with the OSS LLVM, I am not sure you should > adjust such a test.
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the comment. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN -// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: +// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: 'fuse-ld' ---------------- MaskRay wrote: > stuij wrote: > > MaskRay wrote: > > > How does this line trigger unrelated warnings? Can you dump it? > > see my top-level comment > The impoerant bit is that the original message disallows any warning. The new > message with an incorrect 'fuse-ld' (instead of '-fuse-ld') seems really > questionable. Ai, a typo :( Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
