vsapsai planned changes to this revision. vsapsai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Headers/stdatomic.cpp:4 + +#include <stdatomic.h> + ---------------- mclow.lists wrote: > Is there a reason we want to test this twice - once in clang and once in > libc++? > We can use `expected-error` in libc++ tests to check the error. > The idea was to test `<stdatomic.h>` in clang and `<atomic>` in libc++. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure I understood it correctly. Good suggestion to use `expected-error` in libc++ test, will add that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D45470 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
