[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

[via cfe-commits]

@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation 
status
 https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472
 drafting
 Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No

cor3ntin wrote:

> For `"no drafting" status, can we say something different here? I think 
> something like "Not resolved, probably no" would be better, given that we 
> don't actually know what the resolution will be, and if it ends up resolved 
> NAD then we actually do implement it correctly :-)

I think that would make sense. Any opinion @AaronBallman ?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

[Vlad Serebrennikov via cfe-commits]

@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation 
status
 https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472
 drafting
 Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No

Endilll wrote:

Current state of things is my fault (I was the one who introduced `no open`, 
`no drafting`, and `no review` statuses). I've been pondering on a different 
idea recently: `No*`, and a pop-up saying something along the lines of 
`Tentative; issue hasn't been resolved yet`. Like cppreference does in their 
compiler support table. Seems less heavy for such a big table, but still 
provides details for those who are interested.

Another idea is for `No` to be a link to an issue on bug tracker instead of a 
pop-up.

It also worth mentioning that `make_cxx_dr_status` is strict with those 
unresolved statuses, and it yells every time status in a test doesn't match 
status in `cwg_index.html`.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits