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 > >> - 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
