ymandel marked an inline comment as done. ymandel added a comment. Thanks for the review!
================ Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/StencilTest.cpp:273 + std::string Snippet = R"cc( + Smart x; + x; ---------------- tdl-g wrote: > You're only testing the "QuacksLike" case. I suspect you should have tests > that validate the "KnownSmartPointers". > > Admittedly, it's a bit redundant since the known smart pointers also > QuackLike pointers. Which, I guess, raises the question of why you have the > hard-coded list of KnownSmartPointers if they are covered by the QuacksLike > behavior and thus can't be meaningfully tested independently. > > What do you think? You're right -- there isn't really a meaningful test specific to the known cases. I added a comment explaining that hard-coding them is an optimization. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93637/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93637 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
