HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment.
> In D151145#4365580 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151145#4365580>,
> @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
>
>> As stated on Github I don't think we have a bug.
>
> Are you sure, I'm pretty sure this is a bug? Can you elaborate on the
> discussion on github. I wouldn't want to fix something that isn't broken. If
> this is indeed expected maybe I can update the docs.
Everything good, seems to be a bug.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTestRawStrings.cpp:177
+ format(R"test(
+t = R"pb(item:1)pb";)test",
+ getRawStringPbStyleSeparateSection()));
----------------
Icantjuddle wrote:
> HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > EXPECT_EQ
> I used the function instead of the macro to conform to the convention of
> every other test in the file.
>
> The function provides its own justification.
> ```
> // Gcc 4.8 doesn't support raw string literals in macros, which breaks some
> // build bots. We use this function instead.
> void expect_eq(const std::string Expected, const std::string Actual) {
> ```
And every other clang-format test file (at least I worked on) uses the macro.
Also I don't think gcc 4.8 will be able to compile LLVM anymore, but I may be
wrong on that.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151145/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151145
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
