wanders added a comment. In D127201#3578077 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127201#3578077>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Thanks for adding some more test coverage! Would it be worth mentioning the > miscompile fix in the release notes more explicitly? Yes, might be a good idea, in particualar as some cases which were accepted (but miscompiled) now gives compilation errors. Will add something to release notes. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/stmtexpr-init.c:1 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -O -std=gnu11 %s -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s + ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > why the -std=gnu11 here? I would assume our default would be enough? Also, > why the opt-flag? That likely is unnecessary/will cause 'bad things' to > happen. Clang tests typically don't use the opt flags. > why the -std=gnu11 here? I would assume our default would be enough? Also, > why the opt-flag? That likely is unnecessary/will cause 'bad things' to > happen. Clang tests typically don't use the opt flags. Right, gnu11 shouldn't be needed. The -O flag was there as that made the optimizer remove some of the dynamic initialization things making it easier to see the pattern to match on. But I see now that the checks I ended up doing matches just fine without it. So will drop these. Thanks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D127201/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D127201 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
