On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Dan Albert <[email protected]> wrote: > I've changed the test so that it calls __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length() > (I'm mad at whoever gave this function such a long name) directly rather > than expecting the compiler to call it for bad input to new[]. That check > can go in the compiler tests.
I'm okay with that approach, but should this test then be merged back into test_aux_runtime.cpp instead of being in a separate file? Regardless, the comments at the top of the file should probably be corrected, unless we're adding them as a FIXME to a commented-out version of the original test case. ~Aaron > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Dan Albert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Sorry, I got used to relying on phabricator to keep track of things, and >> > forgot about this one. >> >> No worries! >> >> > Could you split the test in to a separate file and add `// XFAIL: *` at >> > the >> > top? That way you can commit it with the guts of the patch and we don't >> > have >> > to worry about forgetting to submit the test later. >> > >> > Other than that, LGTM. >> >> I've split the test out into its own file, and have attached the patch >> here. >> >> Since I don't have a way to test this locally, and no other tests have >> XFAIL lines, I'm not quite comfortable committing this without someone >> who can run the tests confirming that it runs cleanly. >> >> Thanks! >> >> ~Aaron > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
