astrelni added a comment. In D62977#1559649 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559649>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D62977#1559637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559637>, @astrelni wrote: > > > In D62977#1559628 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559628>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > It //sounds// correct, but i don't see accompanying test changes, so i > > > can't be sure. > > > > > > The tests as they are cover the positive case in that they would not show > > warning or fixes if we didn't find the replacements. > > > Yep > > In D62977#1559637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977#1559637>, @astrelni wrote: > > > The only way to test the negative is to make a second test with a second > > set of mock googletest headers that declare things in the v1.8 way. Is this > > what you would prefer? > > > If that is what it takes to get the test coverage, i suppose so. What do you think of this? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62977 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
