Endill added a comment. Thank you for taking care of other tests under `dr25xx.cpp`!
In D152632#4412075 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152632#4412075>, @rZhBoYao wrote: > Overhaul for `dr25xx.cpp`. > > For each test case, tried to support as many language modes as possible. > Not sure what those `-triple x86_64-unknown-unknown` are for? I leave them > there nonetheless. They are usually used for codegen tests, so no need to specify the triple if you don't need to. > `-Wdeprecated-literal-operator` is under `-Wdeprecated` which is not under > `-Wpedantic` so is not triggered by `-pedantic-errors`. Does this need > change? I imagine it would be pretty disruptive. On the other hand, pedantic > users might care about deprecation 🤔️. I don't think we need to change status quo. In general I don't expect diagnostics grouping to care about DR tests, and I don't think it should. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr25xx.cpp:71 +// expected-warning@+2 {{identifier '_π___' preceded by space(s) in the literal operator declaration is deprecated}} +// expected-warning@+1 {{user-defined literal suffixes containing '__' or not starting with '_' are reserved}} +long double operator"" _\u03C0___(long double); ---------------- Is it possible to put expected directive after the code, like we do in majority of existing tests? This means using only negative line offsets after `@` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152632/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152632 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
