<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM, David Blaikie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Matthieu Monrocq<br>
<<a href="mailto:matthieu.monrocq@gmail.com">matthieu.monrocq@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Le 16 avril 2012 00:09, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
><br>
>> Author: dblaikie<br>
>> Date: Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> New Revision: 154776<br>
>><br>
>> URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154776&view=rev" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154776&view=rev</a><br>
>> Log:<br>
>> Fix tests that weren't actually verifying anything.<br>
>><br>
>> Passing -verify to clang without -cc1 or -Xclang silently passes (with a<br>
>> printed warning, but lit doesn't care about that). This change adds -cc1<br>
>> or,<br>
>> as is necessary in one case, -Xclang to fix this so that these tests are<br>
>> actually verifying as intended.<br>
>><br>
>> I'd like to change the driver so this kind of mistake could not be made,<br>
>> but<br>
>> I'm not entirely sure how. Further, since the driver only warns about<br>
>> unknown<br>
>> flags in general, we could have similar bugs with a misspellings of<br>
>> arguments<br>
>> that would be nice to find.<br>
>><br>
>> Modified:<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c<br>
>> cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp<br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: %clang --analyze %s -o %t -verify<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang --analyze %s -o %t -Xclang -verify<br>
>><br>
>> // Test handling of ObjC bool literals.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only -verify %s<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s<br>
>><br>
>> // NULL is rdefined in stddef.h<br>
>> #define NULL ((void*) 0)<br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: not %clang %s -fsyntax-only -verify<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -fsyntax-only -verify<br>
>> // rdar://7876588<br>
>><br>
>> // This test verifies that clang gives a decent error for UTF-16 source<br>
>> files.<br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44<br>
>> 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: %clang -verify -pedantic %s -fsyntax-only<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -pedantic %s -fsyntax-only<br>
>> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -E %s | FileCheck %s<br>
>> // rdar://6899937<br>
>> #include "pragma_sysheader.h"<br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only -Wno-deprecated-declarations -verify %s<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -Wno-deprecated-declarations -verify %s<br>
>> extern void OldFunction() __attribute__((deprecated));<br>
>><br>
>> int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {<br>
>><br>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp<br>
>> URL:<br>
>> <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff</a><br>
>><br>
>> ==============================================================================<br>
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp (original)<br>
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012<br>
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@<br>
>> -// RUN: %clang -Weverything -fsyntax-only %s -verify<br>
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -Weverything -fsyntax-only %s -verify<br>
>><br>
>> // This previously crashed due to a bug in the CFG. Exercising all<br>
>> // warnings helps check CFG construction.<br>
>> @@ -8,6 +8,6 @@<br>
>> ~PR12271();<br>
>> };<br>
>><br>
>> -void testPR12271() {<br>
>> - PR12271 a[1][1];<br>
>> -}<br>
>> \ No newline at end of file<br>
>> +void testPR12271() { // expected-warning {{no previous prototype for<br>
>> function 'testPR12271'}}<br>
>> + PR12271 a[1][1]; // expected-warning {{unused variable 'a'}}<br>
>> +}<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> cfe-commits mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu">cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> The only way I would see lit actually reacting would be to terminate the<br>
> processus with a non-0 result, which should be reported.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Right<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Perhaps that we could add a "developer" option provoking this kind of<br>
> behavior for unknown flags and have lit expand %clang and %clang_cc1<br>
> automatically with this flag. This flag should then be negated in the few<br>
> tests that actually test the driver diagnostic.<br>
<br>
</div>Ideally, I'm wondering whether it makes sense to have even release<br>
versions of clang produce a non-zero exit code for completely unknown<br>
flags. If someone passes -foobar to clang, should we really silently<br>
(wrt exit code, at least) succeed?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>What if the flag is a GCC flag that "might" work depending on what CC is set to? I think we need to let users ask for either warnings or errors about unknown flags, just as we do today.</div>
</div>