On Jul 3, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: > On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 5:18 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: >> [...snip...] >>> In the case above, Module.h is shared across a number of tests. In some >>> tests the include file was parsed correctly and in others it was not. (I >>> made some comments about a net with holes in another post and this >>> is one example of where it applied!) Unfortunately, this incorrect parsing >>> coincided with the cases where the diagnostic also not generated (if you >>> look at the original implementation you will understand why), so the >>> test-case bug was missed. Since the diagnostic sometimes is and >>> sometimes is not generated, hence the "0-1". >> >> I see. It doesn't look like the "umbrella header" warning >> (-Wincomplete-umbrella) >> is exercised anywhere else, though. Perhaps it should be put into a test of >> its own? (I think it's reasonable to make a separate "Umbrella.framework" >> because of the existing expectation in Module.framework.) > > Hmm, I'm not sure I understand enough about how the modules part of the > compiler > works to change a test-case so drastically. Would it not be better to get > this > changed by someone better qualified?
Let's rope Doug in on this part. Doug, what exactly is -Wincomplete-umbrella for? Is it okay to just test it in one place, and make the "default" Module.framework a completely clean framework? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
