[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
ldionne wrote: No worries! I just created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85305, hopefully that should do the trick. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Mark de Wever via llvm-branch-commits
mordante wrote: > Is the fix only to switch to 18.1 in the cmake? I can do that if that's it, I > just don't fully understand the situation w/ clang tidy ODR violations since > you were the one to make these changes That should be all. I'm also happy to do it, but that will be tomorrow.

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
ldionne wrote: Is the fix only to switch to 18.1 in the cmake? I can do that if that's it, I just don't fully understand the situation w/ clang tidy ODR violations since you were the one to make these changes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Mark de Wever via llvm-branch-commits
mordante wrote: > @mordante So should I close this PR? I see you already did. Do you want to make a fix for the release branch or do you want me to pick that up? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
ldionne wrote: @mordante So should I close this PR? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/ldionne closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Mark de Wever via llvm-branch-commits
mordante wrote: I'd rather fix the clang-tidy integration. I'm quite sure we have ODR violations since we use clang-tidy 18 with clang 17 libraries. These violations break the modules, but other clang-tidy checks may also have issues. Changing

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread via llvm-branch-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx Author: Louis Dionne (ldionne) Changes LIT was never really meant to generate tests during discovery, and we probably shouldn't be doing this. This hack is even worse than the initial attempt because it buries the "UNSUPPORTED" at the bottom

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/ldionne milestoned https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

[llvm-branch-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Cherry-pick the disabling of modules tests onto release/18.x (PR #85247)

2024-03-14 Thread Louis Dionne via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/ldionne created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85247 LIT was never really meant to generate tests during discovery, and we probably shouldn't be doing this. This hack is even worse than the initial attempt because it buries the "UNSUPPORTED" at the bottom of the