Thanks, that sounds good to me. I added the assignment with the new comment
in 363199.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 03:59, Ilya Biryukov wrote:
> Sure, that should work just fine. Could you also add a comment what events
> setting the log file sets in motion? It is not obvious from the test code.
>
>
Sure, that should work just fine. Could you also add a comment what events
setting the log file sets in motion? It is not obvious from the test code.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:51 PM Alex L wrote:
> Hmm, the logging was meant to exercise the creation of chained diagnostic
> consumer, so without i
Hmm, the logging was meant to exercise the creation of chained diagnostic
consumer, so without it the test is kind of pointless. I'll undo your
change, but will set the file to "-" which will print the log to STDERR and
won't create new files. Does that sound reasonable?
Cheers,
Alex
On Tue, 11 J
Hi Alex,
Just wanted to let you know that I removed logging of diagnostics into a
file inside the unit test in r363041 to unbreak our integrate.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:29 AM Alex Lorenz via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: arphaman
> Date: Mon Jun 10 16:32:42 2019
>
Author: arphaman
Date: Mon Jun 10 16:32:42 2019
New Revision: 363009
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=363009&view=rev
Log:
[Frontend] SetUpDiagnosticLog should handle unowned diagnostic consumer
in the compiler
The function SetUpDiagnosticLog that was called from createDiagnostics did
