This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[libc++] Renames nasty_macro test.
ClosedPublic

Authored by Mordante on Jul 23 2023, 5:06 AM.

Details

Reviewers
jloser
philnik
Group Reviewers
Restricted Project
Commits
rG97d60af0d33b: [libc++] Renames nasty_macro test.
Summary

The name is not really descriptive, renamed the file and improved the
diagnostics.

As a drive-by fixes one macro to generate a diagnostic.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

Mordante created this revision.Jul 23 2023, 5:06 AM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptJul 23 2023, 5:06 AM
Mordante requested review of this revision.Jul 23 2023, 5:06 AM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptJul 23 2023, 5:06 AM
Herald added a reviewer: Restricted Project. · View Herald Transcript
jloser accepted this revision.Jul 23 2023, 6:58 AM
jloser added a subscriber: jloser.

Much better name! Thanks.

I'm not sure the name is much better. It still doesn't tell me what the test actually tests. Is it that we only use reserved names? Is it to avoid reserved names from other libraries? Maybe something like system_reserved_names would be better? I think that is mostly what we are trying to protect against.

I'm not sure the name is much better. It still doesn't tell me what the test actually tests. Is it that we only use reserved names? Is it to avoid reserved names from other libraries? Maybe something like system_reserved_names would be better? I think that is mostly what we are trying to protect against.

System or other compilers, especially MSVC uses quite a number of "nice" __ugly_names as "attributes".

I'm fine with system_reserved_names. Do you have other comments? If not then I'll update this patch.

philnik accepted this revision.Jul 26 2023, 9:24 AM

I'm not sure the name is much better. It still doesn't tell me what the test actually tests. Is it that we only use reserved names? Is it to avoid reserved names from other libraries? Maybe something like system_reserved_names would be better? I think that is mostly what we are trying to protect against.

System or other compilers, especially MSVC uses quite a number of "nice" __ugly_names as "attributes".

I'm fine with system_reserved_names. Do you have other comments? If not then I'll update this patch.

Nope. LGTM with the updated name.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 26 2023, 9:24 AM

I'm not sure the name is much better. It still doesn't tell me what the test actually tests. Is it that we only use reserved names? Is it to avoid reserved names from other libraries? Maybe something like system_reserved_names would be better? I think that is mostly what we are trying to protect against.

System or other compilers, especially MSVC uses quite a number of "nice" __ugly_names as "attributes".

I'm fine with system_reserved_names. Do you have other comments? If not then I'll update this patch.

Nope. LGTM with the updated name.

Thanks! I'll give the CI a test and then land it.

Mordante updated this revision to Diff 544400.Jul 26 2023, 9:35 AM

Rebased and addresses review comments.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.