[PATCH] D54132: [CodeGenCXX] XFAIL test for ASAN on Darwin.

[George Karpenkov via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

george.karpenkov accepted this revision.
george.karpenkov added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.


================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/castexpr-basepathsize-threshold.cpp:8
+// recursive template instantiation limit.
+// XFAIL: darwin && asan
+
----------------
vsapsai wrote:
> george.karpenkov wrote:
> > Do we actually want UNSUPPORTED here? We don't want to fail if ASAN stack usage decreases?
> If ASAN stack usage decreases or template instantiation stack usage decreases, I'd like to know that and to remove XFAIL. My reason to prefer XFAIL over UNSUPPORTED is that currently the test fails due to specific implementation of Clang and ASAN, not due to conceptual incompatibility. But I don't have any evidence to show that my suggestion is actually better, so if my argument doesn't look convincing, most likely UNSUPPORTED would be better.
Either one works for me.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D54132