On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:46 PM David Greene wrote:
> David Blaikie via Openmp-dev writes:
>
> > I have a bit of concern about this sort of thing - worrying it'll lead to
> > people being less cautious about writing the more isolated tests.
>
> That's a fair concern. Reviewers will still need t
David Blaikie via Openmp-dev writes:
> I have a bit of concern about this sort of thing - worrying it'll lead to
> people being less cautious about writing the more isolated tests.
That's a fair concern. Reviewers will still need to insist on small
component-level tests to go along with patches
I have a bit of concern about this sort of thing - worrying it'll lead to
people being less cautious about writing the more isolated tests. That
said, clearly there's value in end-to-end testing for all the reasons
you've mentioned (& we do see these problems in practice - recently DWARF
indexing b
> -Original Message-
> From: cfe-dev On Behalf Of David Greene
> via cfe-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2019 12:50 PM
> To: llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; openmp-
> d...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> Subject: [cfe-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing
>
> [ I am i
[ I am initially copying only a few lists since they seem like
the most impacted projects and I didn't want to spam all the mailing
lists. Please let me know if other lists should be included. ]
I submitted D68230 for review but this is not about that patch per se.
The patch allows update_cc_
CALL FOR PAPERS / PARTICIPATION
At FOSDEM 2020, LLVM will again participate with a dedicated devroom, on
Saturday February 1st, in Brussels.
As possibly the largest European Open Source Conference, FOSDEM attracts
more than 600 lectures and over 8000 hackers - many core contributors of
the world’
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:42:25 +0200, Pavel Labath wrote:
> On 08/10/2019 10:14, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > If I should say something I would keep llvm::.
> >
> > My reason: The LLVM types are in many cases emulating classes adopted
> > in future C++ standards and I find more clear llvm:: vs. std:: th
On 08/10/2019 02:45, Larry D'Anna via lldb-dev wrote:
Pavel Labath said
some llvm classes, are so well-known and widely used, that qualifying
them with "llvm::" serves no useful purpose and only adds visual noise.
I'm thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef,
Optional/Error, etc
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:39:51 +0200, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote:
> some llvm classes, are so well-known and widely used, that qualifying them
> with "llvm::" serves no useful purpose and only adds visual noise. I'm
> thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef, Optional/Error,
> et
