aganea added a comment. In D99363#2653476 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99363#2653476>, @abhina.sreeskantharajan wrote:
> In D99363#2653201 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99363#2653201>, @aganea wrote: > >> I'm just wondering if D96363 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96363> and all >> attached subsequent patches shouldn't be reverted for now. This is a quite >> trivial case uncovered by tests. On re-land, I would then add a test >> validating the issue on Windows: >> >> $ cat -A rewrite-includes-clang-cl.cpp >> // REQUIRES: system-windows^M$ >> // RUN: %clang_cl /E -Xclang -frewrite-includes %s | %clang_cl /c /Tp -^M$ >> ^M$ >> int foo();^M$ >> int bar();^M$ >> #define HELLO \^M$ >> foo(); \^M$ >> bar();^M$ >> ^M$ >> int main() {^M$ >> HELLO^M$ >> return 0;^M$ >> }^M$ > > There were a lot of similar patches so reverting all of them might be more > work than isolating the change that caused it and reverting that. It seems > that the patch you initially commented on did not contain the problematic > change since reverting the change doesn't fix your issue. Actually it is `git bisect` that pointed me to that patch :-) > I created the following patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D99426 based on @rnk > suggestion. I created a new flag for OF_TextWithCRLF on Windows and made sure > my most recent text changes use the OF_Text flag while all other uses were > changed to OF_TextWithCRLF. This should solve any CRLF issues that were > introduced recently by my patches. If you have time, would you be able to > test if that patch fixes your issue? Yes I will! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99363/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99363 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
