MaskRay added a comment. In D121556#3444131 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556#3444131>, @void wrote:
> In D121556#3444021 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556#3444021>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> 7aa8c38a9e190aea14116028c38b1d9f54cbb0b3 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG7aa8c38a9e190aea14116028c38b1d9f54cbb0b3> still >> uses `std::shuffle`, not incorporating the `llvm::shuffle` fixes I did. > > You said it was still failing after the std::shuffle to llvm::shuffle change. By saying it still failed, I meant there were other Windows vs non-Windows differences, not that std::shuffle=>llvm::shuffle was an unintended change. I wondered why the test did not fail again when you re-landed it. Now I see: you simply removed all order checks like `EXPECT_EQ(Expected, getFieldNamesFromRecord(RD));` The tests seem overly relaxing and no longer serve the original purposes to catch errors (if the algorithm is changed to not randomize at all, I suspect the tests will pass as well). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121556 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
