On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:06 AM, David Majnemer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM, David Majnemer > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:59 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:35 PM, David Majnemer > >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> > Author: majnemer > >>> >> > Date: Sun Aug 25 21:35:51 2013 > >>> >> > New Revision: 189208 > >>> >> > > >>> >> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=189208&view=rev > >>> >> > Log: > >>> >> > [-cxx-abi microsoft] Unnamed types are mangled less wrong > >>> >> > >>> >> Test case? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > <unnamed-tag> is still wrong, <unnamed-tag>@ is just marginally less > >>> > wrong. > >>> > I thought of this change more of a code cleanup than a bug-fix for > >>> > mangling. > >>> > >>> A change in behavior really ought to have a test. If it's still wrong, > >>> a FIXME showing the ring mangling in the test case should suffice. > >>> > >>> The fact that this didn't break any existing tests seems to indicate > >>> that this area lacks coverage - adding tests now, even if they > >>> demonstrate the broken behavior & document what it should be, might be > >>> nice, so we can track progress towards correctness. > >> > >> > >> Right, I'd CHECK for the current mangling and have a FIXME with the > >> desired mangling. > > > > > > We already have a PR tracking the broken behavior. I am not aware of any > > LLVM policy, codified or implicit, that asks for bug PRs to be encoded in > > the test suite. > > There isn't, though it's been discussed as a possible idea (one that I > rather like). > > The relevant policy here is: intentional behavioural changes have > tests for the changed behaviour. > And I fully agree with that policy, I just didn't see it as a behavioral change. In my eyes, that code was still there purely for illustrative reasons so that I remember to '@' terminate when I came back to fix it for real. > > > > This particular mangling bug is fixed in > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1540 >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
