mizvekov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/resolve-single-template-id.cpp:73-75
+ oneT<int> < oneT<int>; // expected-warning {{self-comparison always
evaluates to false}} \
+ // expected-warning {{relational comparison result
unused}} \
+ // expected-error {{ordered comparison of function
pointers}}
----------------
mizvekov wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > Cast `(void)(x < y)` here to suppress one of these irrelevant warnings.
> > The combination of warning "expr always evaluates to false" and erroring
> > "expr is ill-formed" is also silly, but I suppose we can't do much about it.
> I tried avoid changing the original test because I am not sure what the
> original intention was, but I agree in principle the two errors already give
> enough indication that the compiler is figuring out what is happening here
> correctly.
Taking another look at this test, it is doing too much weird stuff like this
all over the place, and I am a bit hesitant to make such a change because the
test scope is really not clear here...
I would be more open to suppressing this warning by passing a command line
flag, but even then I would wait for a second opinion.
Some crazy talk on my part here, but I wonder a bit if this is somehow
bothering us because there are so many diagnostics thrown in such small amount
of code. Perhaps a bit like how we might feel pointing someone out for too many
errors is not very social?
Suppose the user writes this 10 character statement and he gets one error and
two warnings, that might offend him a little bit, maybe?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104680/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104680
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
