aaron.ballman added a comment. In D72566#1815913 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566#1815913>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D72566#1815904 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566#1815904>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > I agree that the current alias situation is not ideal, though i'm not sure > > how much we can fix it since it crosses user interface boundary > > (i.e. what fixes won't lead to some regressions from the previous expected > > behavior) > > > If you're expecting a test to run twice usually something has gone wrong I'm not certain I agree. Many of the aliases have different sets of default checking options from the primary check. Running the "same" check twice in these cases produces different output. How do you intend to handle situations like that? If the answer is "disable the aliases", then this has the potential to lose valuable coverage for some folks who are asking for all checks to be enabled. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
