[PATCH] D108696: [Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first

[Chuanqi Xu via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ChuanqiXu added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutines-exp-namespace.cpp:2
+// This file is the same with coroutines.cpp except the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace.
+// This intention of this test is to make sure the legacy imeplementation in std::experimental namespace could work.
+// TODO: Remove this test once we didn't support
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > ldionne wrote:
> > > 
> > ...and not just "could work," but "works." :)
> > ```
> > // This file is the same as coroutines.cpp, except the components are defined in namespace std::experimental.
> > // The intent of this test is to make sure the std::experimental implementation still works.
> > // TODO: Remove this test once we drop support for <experimental/coroutine>.
> > ```
> > 
> > Also, it occurs to me that you should probably be testing both `<coroutine>` and `<experimental/coroutine>` in all the other tests, as well; e.g. `coroutine_handle-address-return-type.cpp` should have a matching `coroutine_handle-address-return-type-exp-namespace.cpp` and so on. Otherwise, aren't you removing a lot of regression tests for `<experimental/coroutine>`, despite that we still claim to support `<experimental/coroutine>` in Clang 14.x?
> > 
> > In many cases, it should be possible to do something like
> > ```
> > // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -fcoroutines-ts -fsyntax-only -verify %s -DINCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL=1
> > // RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -fsyntax-only -verify %s -DINCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL=0
> > 
> > #if INCLUDE_EXPERIMENTAL
> > #include <experimental/coroutine>
> > namespace coro = std::experimental;
> > #else
> > #include <coroutine>
> > namespace coro = std;
> > #endif
> > 
> > [...]
> > ```
> Thanks for reporting this. I would try to test both by duplicating the tests. The method to use macro may not be good due to it needs to mangled.
(Ignore this) I just noticed that we could use the macro based method for Sema tests.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696