MaskRay added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Sema/implicit-decl.c:2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify=expected,implicit -fsyntax-only -Werror=implicit-function-declaration +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -verify -fsyntax-only -Wno-implicit-function-declaration + ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > I probably wouldn't bother testing this - presumably we don't test the -Wno- > variant of every warning, given that it's implemented in a generic fashion? > > If this is removed, I expect the verifier prefixes don't need to be changed? Yes. I can remove -Wno-implicit-function-declaration ================ Comment at: clang/test/Sema/vecshift.c:3-4 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -DEXT -DERR -verify=expected,vecelemsize %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -DERR -verify %s -Wno-vec-elem-size +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -DEXT -DERR -verify %s -Wno-vec-elem-size ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > The previous version of the test had this without -DERR, right? Why the > change here? I think the previous version was wrongly structured. It probably wanted to test what -Wvec-elem-size checks but Wno-error=vec-elem-size would not check anything. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90874 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
