On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:00 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:52 AM, David Dean wrote: >>> >>>> It looks like you just disabled the warning, wouldn't it be good to >>>> actually add it in as expected? >>>> (and remove the one we've been ignoring?) >>> >>> Good idea, go ahead. However, it will be subject to future failures as >>> warning texts tend to change. >>> Original intention of tests were not meant to check specific warnings. >> >> What's it meant to check, then? > > Should have said that if original test was testing some diagnostics then > makes sense to check the warnings. > If intention of the test was to check for crash, code gen. etc. Then checking > for warning is not needed. > - fariborz
Ah, fair enough. Perhaps we could turn off all warnings on the crash/codegen tests if that's easy to do mechanically (both easy to classify and modify) - David > >> >>> - Fariborz >>> >>>> >>>> On 9 Aug 2012, at 9:46 AM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:45 AM, David Dean wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> After perusing the logs further, I've decided not to pester you with >>>>>> them. >>>>>> We were, in fact, ignoring the missing diagnostic in nullptr1.C >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll update the tests. >>>>> >>>>> It is done. >>>>> - fariborz >>>>> >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
