[PATCH] D139095: [clang] Mark CWG405 as a duplicate of CWG218

Fri Dec 2 04:26:01 PST 2022

cor3ntin added a comment.

In D139095#3964181 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095#3964181>, @Endill wrote:

> So I'd like to raise a couple of questions:
>
> 1. What test for 405 is going to be if not a copy-and-paste of a part of 218 test?

I think this is perfectly fine to have a duplicated test case, I agree with Aaron, we should not invent duplicated status ourselves.
Adding a comment in the test like "Note: this test is identical to the one for CWG405" would be a good idea

> 2. Is it possible to change status of 405 in the official document? Or get a technical rationale for it not being a duplicate of 218.

Nah, that wouldn't be worth the hassle, even if you got people to agree on the duplicated nature

> As a side note, I don't feel too comfortable testing name lookup via side effects like diagnostics. `#pragma clang __debug dump` is good, but not powerful enough to test ADL. Are those the only options we currently have?

You could do a codegen tests and check that the correct function gets called using its mangled name. There are examples in the drs tests already, grep for "// CHECK: call"

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D139095