================
@@ -1018,9 +1019,9 @@ namespace cwg62 { // cwg62: 2.9
struct A {
struct { int n; } b;
};
- template<typename T> struct X {};
- template<typename T> T get() { return get<T>(); }
- template<typename T> int take(T) { return 0; }
+ template<typename T> struct X {}; // cxx98-note 6{{template parameter is
declared here}}
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
> My concern is not about the bookmarks though, is about the way the tests are
> written here, checking the whole
diagnostic sequence, but without actually checking it, and without any kind of
automated update.
I'm not certain I understand the concern then. The request is to do something
like:
```
template<typename T> struct X {}; // #template_struct_X
...
... // expected-warning {{yada yada}}
// expected-note@#template_struct_X {{declared here}}
...
... // expected-warning {{yada yada}} \
// expected-note@#template_struct_X {{declared here}} \
// expected-error {{a different yada on the same line}} \
// expected-note@#template_struct_X {{declared here}}
```
instead of doing:
```
template<typename T> struct X {}; // expected-note 3 {{declared here}}
...
... // expected-warning {{yada yada}}
...
... // expected-warning {{yada yada}} \
// expected-error {{a different yada on the same line}}
```
so either way it is actually checking the whole diagnostic sequence, just that
with bookmarks it's easier to tell which warnings/errors generate what notes.
And we've never had a way to automatically update `-verify` tests. We do for
some kinds of `FileCheck` tests, but that can be contentious because of how
easy it is to generate the test updates, bugs and all. (I'm not opposed to
having tooling which helps with diagnostic changes; upgrading warnings to
errors is a prime example of something that could hopefully be made easier.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126088
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
