Quuxplusone added a comment. In D108696#3082866 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696#3082866>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> @Quuxplusone gentle ping~ I think this PR is mostly above my pay grade. :) IIUC, there is a chicken-and-egg problem between D108696 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696> and D109433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433>? If I understand the situation correctly (which maybe I don't), I think you should add D108696 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696> as a "Parent Revision" of D109433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433>, and tag both of them with //both// "libc++" //and// "clang" project tags, and then poke buildkite to re-run the CI on both of them. I would hope that D109433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433>'s test results would still be green. And then you'd land both D108696 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696> and D109433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109433> in very quick succession. //But//, I'm not going to be an approver on D108696 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696> because it's over my head. Originally you pinged @rjmccall @lxfind @junparser ; are they still happy with D108696 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696> and the general direction we're taking on coroutines stuff in 14.x and 15.x? (AIUI, the intent is for libc++ 14.x to support both C++11 `<experimental/coroutine>` and C++20 `<coroutine>`, and then in libc++ 15.x to support //only// C++20 `<coroutine>`.) ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutine_handle-addres-return-type.cpp:1 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify %s -stdlib=libc++ -std=c++1z -fcoroutines-ts -fsyntax-only ---------------- Pre-existing: in the name of this file, `addres` should be `address` ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutines-exp-namespace.cpp:2 +// This file is the same with coroutines.cpp except the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. +// This intention of this test is to make sure the legacy imeplementation in std::experimental namespace could work. +// TODO: Remove this test once we didn't support ---------------- ldionne wrote: > ...and not just "could work," but "works." :) ``` // This file is the same as coroutines.cpp, except the components are defined in namespace std::experimental. // The intent of this test is to make sure the std::experimental implementation still works. // TODO: Remove this test once we drop support for <experimental/coroutine>. ``` Also, it occurs to me that you should probably be testing both `<coroutine>` and `<experimental/coroutine>` in all the other tests, as well; e.g. `coroutine_handle-address-return-type.cpp` should have a matching `coroutine_handle-address-return-type-exp-namespace.cpp` and so on. Otherwise, aren't you removing a lot of regression tests for `<experimental/coroutine>`, despite that we still claim to support `<experimental/coroutine>` in Clang 14.x? In many cases, it should be possible to do something like ``` // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -fcoroutines-ts -fsyntax-only -verify %s -DINCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL=1 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -fsyntax-only -verify %s -DINCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL=0 #if INCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL #include <experimental/coroutine> namespace coro = std::experimental; #else #include <coroutine> namespace coro = std; #endif [...] ``` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
