hubert.reinterpretcast added a comment. In D122983#3426450 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122983#3426450>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Yeah, those tests seem to be overly-constraining. There's no reason to be > validating whether there's an implicit function declaration warning in a > *codegen* test. I will change all of those AAarch64 tests to require -std=c99 > explicitly whenever possible, remove the `-verify` flag because there's no > reason for a codegen test to verify diagnostic behavior that isn't generated > by the CodeGen library, and remove the `// expected-warning` comments. I plan > to do that as an NFC change that I'll land outside of this patch, unless any > of the AArch64 folks speak up pretty quickly. Maybe a smaller hammer can be used here, e.g., `-Wno-error=implicit-function-declaration`? The use of the `-verify` flag in a CodeGen test to validate that the test is written as "cleanly" as intended is something that I am sympathetic to. 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
