aaron.ballman marked an inline comment as done. aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D122983#3426534 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983#3426534>, @paulwalker-arm wrote: > Please consider this "AArch64 folks speaking up". What are your plans here > exactly? I have no issue with adding `-std=c99` to the RUN lines, but "remove > the // expected-warning comments" sounds like a significant loss of test > coverage. CodeGen tests don't typically add `-verify` unless the diagnostic is generated by the CodeGen library, so if removing the `expected-warning` lines loses test coverage, that speaks to a lack of test coverage in Sema. But what, exactly, are these tests trying to validate? We have Sema tests which test the behavior of "do we want to diagnose this as an implicit declaration or not", so I don't see these lines adding any value to the tests. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
