mizvekov added a comment. In D112374#3665249 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374#3665249>, @sammccall wrote:
> I've seen plenty of (useful) out-of-tree tidy checks written by people fuzzy > on the difference between a Type and a TypeLoc, or what sugar is. Clang makes > it (almost) easy to write tools but hard to write robust tools. I agree. > All of this is to say I like this change & appreciate how willing you are to > help out-of-tree tools (which is best-effort), but I expect a lot of churn > downstream. (And LLVM has a clear policy that that's OK). Thanks! > (BTW, last time I landed such a change, investigating the LLDB tests was > indeed the most difficult part, and I'm not even on windows. Running a linux > VM of some sort might be your best bet, unfortunately) Yeah I finally managed to build and run the tests on WSL2 running debian testing. The exact configuration used by the lldb-bot seems not to be supported there anymore. I added the needed changes there, it was really only a change in expectation on the type printer. These tests are so easy to break not only because they depend exactly on how clang prints types, but they also depend on how libc++ devs write internal implementation details. If anyone wants to take a look at the new changes to lldb tests, be my guest. Otherwise I will try to land this again soon. It might well be that we figure out some other in-tree user is affected, but I'd rather do that sooner than later. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
