Endilll wrote: > Do NOT drop the variant tests. Even the AST ones. We could move the AST ones > to codegen ones, but that just shifts the issue. We can make the AST checks > much more relaxed though. We need to check that the right function was > selected in the AST. For that we need the pseudo expression with the two > calls, and the declarations, preferably with their return statements. All > other fluff can go.
Sure, I'll preserve test coverage that variant AST dump tests provide. > Generally, do not drop message tests, they are the only error emmiting tests > we have. I guess there is misunderstanding here. The only reason message tests were brought up in this discussion is that they extensively use `variant` clause, so I wondered if their coverage overlaps with the coverage of variant AST dump tests. I was told this is not the case. Message tests I saw do not do AST dump matching, so there is no reason for me to touch them. > I think the reduced AST checks still capture the essence, namely the clause > variables and the captured variables. Does it mean you disagree with Alexey and Joseph that non-variant AST dump tests can be dropped entirely? For instance, it seems that `target` clause is extensively tested by CodeGen tests under `test/OpenMP`. If you disagree with them, are all CHECK lines I preserved really needed? As an example, there is a lot of `ImplicitParamDecl` nodes for which I do not capture any details, but if someone ever adds another one, it will be painful to update the tests even after the reduction I did so far. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/200077 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
