erichkeane added a comment. In D126907#3644127 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907#3644127>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> In D126907#3642530 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907#3642530>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> This version passes check-runtimes, so libc++ is fine, and it passes >> everything I have available. @ChuanqiXu : Would you be able to do 1 more >> run over this to make sure it won't break something? Thanks in advance >> either way! > > I've tested some our internal workloads and all of them looks fine. But it is > expected since we don't use concept heavily. I had tried to run libcxx before > but it looks like my previous config is wrong... Ok, thanks! I DID test the libcxx test suite on the above, I figured it out through check-runtimes. If you were able to take a quick look at the diff and make sure I'm not doing anything horrible, it would be appreciated. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126907 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
