aaron.ballman added a comment. In D129881#3674159 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129881#3674159>, @augusto2112 wrote:
> Actually, never mind, I think I can fix the tests. Thank you for the fix, and sorry for the trouble! In D129881#3674157 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129881#3674157>, @augusto2112 wrote: > Hi @aaron.ballman, it looks like this broke 2 tests in the lldb test suite > (https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/45560/). Can we > revert this to keep CI green? FWIW, this is not a situation where I think a revert would be reasonable. Clang changed in a standards conforming way; if lldb is sensitive to a change in diagnostics like that, I believe the lldb maintainers should be addressing the situation, not the Clang maintainers. However, we of course should collaborate and not cause headaches for one another, so if it was a highly disruptive conforming change or we made a nonconforming change, that's a different story. Thank you for asking about the revert, but thank you even more for helping to fix forward (this helps us keep `git blame` useful without having to wade through churn commits, too)! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129881/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129881 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
