aaron.ballman added a comment. In D139095#3963334 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095#3963334>, @Endill wrote:
> Is it fine that we're marking CWG405 as a duplicate even though it's not > mentioned as such in official publication? I don't think we should mark it as a dup -- we want the status in our tests to match the status on the official document, otherwise things get confusing. The two issues are very closely related, but they change different words in the standard and should be tested independently as best we can. However, comments in the test for each DR pointing to the other related DR would be a good idea. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
