[cfe-commits] r164677 -

[David Blaikie]

-verify is already a negative check (it fails if any unexpected
diagnostics are produced) so I'm not sure what this
expected-no-diagnostics you are thinking of would do? Would you have to
put it on every line of code? Would it be entirely optional? If so,
what purpose would it serve compared to just a pure (non processed)
comment to the reader?
From: Sean Silva
Sent: 10/1/2012 12:53 AM
To: Andy Gibbs
Cc: David Blaikie; Jordan Rose; Nico Weber; Richard Smith;
cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] r164677 -
Oh, I was imagining the expected-no-diagnostics to be localized. So
that you could e.g. do

int foo(); // expected-no-diagnostics

int bar(cause_an_error<T>); // expected-error [...]

That way, you could, in the same file, assert both for the existence
of diagnostics for certain code and that no diagnostics are emitted
for other code.

For me the major downside of -Werror is that it is completely global,
so that it's not possible to see exactly what the test is expecting to
not emit diagnostics for.

--Sean Silva

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Andy Gibbs <andyg1001 at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:47 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>> Any particular reason you prefer this (adding a new expect feature)
>> over just using -Werror (without -verify at all) for tests that are
>> intended not to produce any diagnostics?
>>
>> I don't mind really, just seems like unnecessary work to me & I'm
>> wondering if I'm missing something
>
>
> Actually, its not actually much difference in terms of work.  The change
> required to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer is in the range of 15 lines (approx!),
> but then there are changes to all the test-cases to either change -verify to
> -Werror or add the line "// expected-no-diagnostics".  This is the major
> work since there are in the region of 550 tests to which this applies.  I've
> already made the alterations to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer and to most of the
> test-cases, i.e. to all but a handful which didn't match the criteria of my
> automated script, and which I will adjust by hand.
>
> Personally, I think it is a good change to make since it adds a useful
> function (i.e. to check explicitly for no diagnostics), makes test-cases
> using -verify more fool-proof, and is IMHO better than using -Werror instead
> since this requires people to remember to use this instead.
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
>
>