dblaikie added a comment. In D124434#3479828 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124434#3479828>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D124434#3479051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D124434#3479051>, @junaire wrote: > >>> In general, my concern with the this patch is that it loses test coverage >>> by specifying an explicit language mode. We typically prefer to fix the >>> tests so that they can work in any language mode (and perhaps add >>> additional RUN lines in the process to do so). >> >> OK, I'll do this. But I guess it is not sort of trivial work and will take >> plenty of time. > > Oh, please do not feel obligated to do that work yourself! Not only is it > nontrivial and likely to take a fair amount of effort, I'm not even certain > if other people think it's a good idea or not. I see this more as a start of > a discussion as to how we want to handle this. I think when C and C++ were on > 10+ year release cycles, this model was a bit more palatable, but now that > the releases are shorter (every 3 yrs for C++ at the least) and there's more > interplay between them (extensions ported to older language modes, etc) we > might want something different. Yeah, I have mixed feelings - I think at least in theory, C++ tries to be mostly backwards compatible and so old tests should run successfully in new language modes - and I guess for the most part they do (even though there's a lot of failures, they're few relative to the total number of language-version-unspecified tests we have, no doubt). Anyone have a rough sense of what we did the last couple of language default changes? (not necessarily generalizable, as you say, @aaron.ballman - as the release pace has picked up, trying to figure out what's a suitable/sustainable approach now) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D124434/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D124434 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
