> Ah, OK. I'm still curious about whether this results in a loss of test coverage. Without this test, would the bug it was testing still be caught by some test failure in at least one of the forward or reverse iteration modes?

Sorry ... I missed that. Yes, the reverse iteration buildbot http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/reverse-iteration would test these. These tests were a stopgap solution anyway while the reverse builtbot was being setup.



> I'll just do that (r310506 & r310508) - done! :)
Thanks!


--Mandeep


On 8/9/2017 11:35 AM, David Blaikie wrote:


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 1:44 AM Grang, Mandeep Singh <mgr...@codeaurora.org <mailto:mgr...@codeaurora.org>> wrote:

    In D35043 I have removed the llvm tests which use
    -reverse-iterate. This patch removes the clang tests.


Ah, OK. I'm still curious about whether this results in a loss of test coverage. Without this test, would the bug it was testing still be caught by some test failure in at least one of the forward or reverse iteration modes?

    Should I post a later patch to change all "class
    PointerLikeTypeTraits" to "struct PointerLikeTypeTraits"?


I'll just do that (r310506 & r310508) - done! :)



    On 8/7/2017 2:50 PM, David Blaikie wrote:


    On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:08 PM Mandeep Singh Grang via
    Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org
    <mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:

        mgrang added a comment.

        This patch does 3 things:

        1. Get rid of the unit test
        objc-modern-metadata-visibility2.mm
        <http://objc-modern-metadata-visibility2.mm> because this
        test check uses flag -reverse-iterate. This flag will be
        removed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043.


    Sure - please commit that separately (probably once D35043 is
    approved - probably best to include that removal in D35043, or a
    separate patch that /only/ removes the -reverse-iterate flag (&
    any tests that use it) as a standalone change?).

    Does this test need a replacement? If this test is removed and
    the underlying issue it was testing regresses, will one of the
    buildbots (reverse or normal) catch the problem?

        2. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043 gets rid of the empty base
        definition for PointerLikeTypeTraits. This results in a
        compiler warning because PointerLikeTypeTrait has been
        defined as struct here while in the header it is a class. So
        I have changed struct to class.


    I'd probably go the other way - traits classes like this make
    more sense as structs, I think - it only has public members & no
    implementation really has any need for supporting private members.

        3. Since I changed struct PointerLikeTypeTrait to class
        PointerLikeTypeTrait here, the member functions are no longer
        public now. This results in a compiler error. So I explicitly
        marked them as public here.


        https://reviews.llvm.org/D36386





_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to