jkorous added a comment. In D61466#1602928 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61466#1602928>, @jdenny wrote:
> In D61466#1602917 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61466#1602917>, @jkorous wrote: > > > > > > In an inline comment, you also mentioned the alternative of replacing > `EXPECT_EQ` with `EXPECT_NE`. Neither solution is the XFAIL I'm used to > (from lit for example). I'm not aware of any assertion with this semantics in Google Test. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61466/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61466 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
