aaron.ballman added a comment. In D147717#4249929 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717#4249929>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D147717#4248989 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717#4248989>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> @cjdb has been running some GDB test suites against our compiler: I am >> wondering if we could ask him to try the consteval ones too before we set >> this? > > A lot of that work is manual because I need to interpret LIT messages to know > wether something is a config error (e.g. missing `// > expected-no-diagnostics`), a difference in opinion between compilers (e.g. > GCC says it's an error and Clang says it's a note, reporting diagnostics on > different lines, etc.), or actually an error in Clang. > > I won't have time to check this week, but perhaps next week if the test set > isn't too large (failing that, I'll at least try to get you `// > expected-no-diagnostics` for improved confidence). Does this timeframe seem > acceptable? That sounds perfect to me -- there's not a rush on defining the macro/updating the status page given that we're not near a release, so we can wait until we have more details. Thank you for the help, @cjdb! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147717 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
