MaskRay added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/ast-dump-openmp-begin-declare-variant_11.c:2
 // RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -fopenmp -verify=c_mode   
-ast-dump %s       | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=C
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -fopenmp -verify=cxx_mode 
-ast-dump %s -x c++| FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CXX
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -fopenmp -verify=cxx_mode 
-ast-dump %s -x c++ -std=c++14 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CXX
 
----------------
junaire wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > MaskRay wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > I'm not really keen on this sort of change because it loses test 
> > > > coverage for other language standard versions. We usually try to write 
> > > > our tests to be standard version agnostic and only specify a specific 
> > > > language mode only when absolutely necessary, which doesn't seem to be 
> > > > the case for a lot of the tests in this patch (like this one).
> > > I think we can identify such issues (tests which want to test the latest 
> > > mature standard) and fix them post-transition. This way the transition 
> > > patch feels more isolated and can more easily be reverted.
> > > 
> > > Not sure whether @junaire wants to work on this...
> > > I think we can identify such issues (tests which want to test the latest 
> > > mature standard) and fix them post-transition. This way the transition 
> > > patch feels more isolated and can more easily be reverted.
> > 
> > That feels backwards to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. If there are 
> > tests that are specifically testing C++14 behavior (that did not carry 
> > forward into C++17 or later) but don't have a language standard specified 
> > on the RUN line, I think we should fix those *before* transitioning the 
> > default language standard version because those are NFC fixes that improve 
> > the test clarity even if we never make the transition. The transition patch 
> > should remain isolated and easily revertible with that approach, but 
> > there's less risk that nobody goes back and fixes the tests post-transition.
> > Not sure whether @junaire wants to work on this...
> I don't think I have enough knowledge and experience to do this work, So I 
> would like to abandon my previous patch to hope you can pick it up!
I'll fix some tests.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D131464/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D131464

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to