r200096 - unittests: explicit stringify StringRefs for conversion

[David Blaikie]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
<compnerd at compnerd.org>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <
>> compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <
>>>> compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Author: compnerd
>>>>> Date: Sat Jan 25 14:04:44 2014
>>>>> New Revision: 200096
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=200096&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> unittests: explicit stringify StringRefs for conversion
>>>>>
>>>>> When clang is built outside of the LLVM tree (against a corresponding
>>>>> version),
>>>>> there is no definition providing for operator<<(std::ostream &,
>>>>> StringRef) which
>>>>> is required for the assertion routines in google-test tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, why is this different for an in-tree vs an out-of-tree build?
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Ugh, I should have phrased that better.  I meant a stand-alone vs
>>> combined clang build.
>>>
>>
>> The question, I think, still stands, doesn't it? Why is this different
>> and can we make it not different instead of working around the difference?
>>
>
> With this change, it no longer is different, we always convert the string
> ref to a string before printing.
>

Yes - but there's still some difference in the build system that lead to
this problem and could lead to others. That's not good... we don't want to
keep introducing/chasing down those problems. We should make the build
systems similar and not necessitate this change.


>  The overload is provided by the unit-tests in LLVM (as that is the only
> place that the overload is actually used), and when clang is built
> standalone, the routine is not available.
>

I'm still not following. What do you mean by "the overload is provided by
the unit-tests"? Is this declared in a unit test library and defined there
- how does that declaration get found by the clang unit tests?


> I suppose that we could provide the extra overload specifically for making
> the clang unit-tests compile standalone.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>  Avoid the
>>>>> compilation failure by explicitly stringifying the StringRef prior to
>>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>     cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/DeclPrinterTest.cpp
>>>>>     cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp
>>>>>     cfe/trunk/unittests/Tooling/CompilationDatabaseTest.cpp
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/DeclPrinterTest.cpp
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/DeclPrinterTest.cpp?rev=200096&r1=200095&r2=200096&view=diff
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/DeclPrinterTest.cpp (original)
>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/DeclPrinterTest.cpp Sat Jan 25 14:04:44
>>>>> 2014
>>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,8 @@ public:
>>>>>    OwningPtr<FrontendActionFactory>
>>>>> Factory(newFrontendActionFactory(&Finder));
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (!runToolOnCodeWithArgs(Factory->create(), Code, Args, FileName))
>>>>> -    return testing::AssertionFailure() << "Parsing error in \"" <<
>>>>> Code << "\"";
>>>>> +    return testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> +      << "Parsing error in \"" << Code.str() << "\"";
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (Printer.getNumFoundDecls() == 0)
>>>>>      return testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> @@ -90,8 +91,8 @@ public:
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (Printer.getPrinted() != ExpectedPrinted)
>>>>>      return ::testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> -      << "Expected \"" << ExpectedPrinted << "\", "
>>>>> -         "got \"" << Printer.getPrinted() << "\"";
>>>>> +      << "Expected \"" << ExpectedPrinted.str() << "\", "
>>>>> +         "got \"" << Printer.getPrinted().str() << "\"";
>>>>>
>>>>>    return ::testing::AssertionSuccess();
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp?rev=200096&r1=200095&r2=200096&view=diff
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp (original)
>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/unittests/AST/StmtPrinterTest.cpp Sat Jan 25 14:04:44
>>>>> 2014
>>>>> @@ -76,7 +76,8 @@ public:
>>>>>    OwningPtr<FrontendActionFactory>
>>>>> Factory(newFrontendActionFactory(&Finder));
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (!runToolOnCodeWithArgs(Factory->create(), Code, Args))
>>>>> -    return testing::AssertionFailure() << "Parsing error in \"" <<
>>>>> Code << "\"";
>>>>> +    return testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> +      << "Parsing error in \"" << Code.str() << "\"";
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (Printer.getNumFoundStmts() == 0)
>>>>>      return testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> @@ -89,8 +90,8 @@ public:
>>>>>
>>>>>    if (Printer.getPrinted() != ExpectedPrinted)
>>>>>      return ::testing::AssertionFailure()
>>>>> -      << "Expected \"" << ExpectedPrinted << "\", "
>>>>> -         "got \"" << Printer.getPrinted() << "\"";
>>>>> +      << "Expected \"" << ExpectedPrinted.str() << "\", "
>>>>> +         "got \"" << Printer.getPrinted().str() << "\"";
>>>>>
>>>>>    return ::testing::AssertionSuccess();
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/unittests/Tooling/CompilationDatabaseTest.cpp
>>>>> URL:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/unittests/Tooling/CompilationDatabaseTest.cpp?rev=200096&r1=200095&r2=200096&view=diff
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- cfe/trunk/unittests/Tooling/CompilationDatabaseTest.cpp (original)
>>>>> +++ cfe/trunk/unittests/Tooling/CompilationDatabaseTest.cpp Sat Jan 25
>>>>> 14:04:44 2014
>>>>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ static void expectFailure(StringRef JSON
>>>>>    std::string ErrorMessage;
>>>>>    EXPECT_EQ(NULL,
>>>>> JSONCompilationDatabase::loadFromBuffer(JSONDatabase,
>>>>>
>>>>>  ErrorMessage))
>>>>> -    << "Expected an error because of: " << Explanation;
>>>>> +    << "Expected an error because of: " << Explanation.str();
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>>  TEST(JSONCompilationDatabase, ErrsOnInvalidFormat) {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140127/714e5095/attachment.html>