spall wrote: > This looks reasonable and correct, but the test may also deserve a > `CHECK-NOT: "-S"` to preserve the regression test that #97001 attempted to > add here. Admittedly though, that kind of test can be a bit fragile and this > particular issue is somewhat unlikely to regress, so I could be convinced we > don't really need it.
oh i thought this change did preserve that since this test should fail if such an error is produced? Or that was my thought. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165743 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
