<div dir="ltr"><div>I'm not opposed to the change but using Filecheck really hurts our ability to test standalone.</div><div>Also, we don't have that many compilation failures tests. I'm not sure how badly this change is needed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>/Eric</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jonathan@codesourcery.com" target="_blank">jonathan@codesourcery.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=""><br>
<br>
On 8/26/14, 6:40 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">
<br>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Justin Bogner <<a href="mailto:mail@justinbogner.com" target="_blank">mail@justinbogner.com</a><br></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:mail@justinbogner.com" target="_blank">mail@justinbogner.com</a>><u></u>> wrote:<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Eric Fiselier <<a href="mailto:eric@efcs.ca" target="_blank">eric@efcs.ca</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eric@efcs.ca" target="_blank">eric@efcs.ca</a>>> writes:<br>
>> I don't think we should spend our time fixing warnings (coverity or<br>
>> otherwise) is code that is supposed to produce compile<br>
>> errors... seems a waste.<br>
><br>
> I don't want to revive this thread, but I really want to address this.<br>
><br>
> Its *more* important to fix problems in tests that are supposed to<br>
> fail to compile than any other test. Its super easy to have code fail<br>
> to compile. What we are trying to test is that it fails for the<br>
> *right* reason. Any other errors, such as the one in this patch,<br>
> could cause the test to "pass" incorrectly. What if this test was<br>
> "passing" because of the missing return?<br>
<br>
I suspect the right answer here is to rework the libc++ testing<br>
infrastructure so that it actually checks *why* the test failed in some<br>
way, rather than the current "Exit code 1? Great!" approach.<br>
<br>
I guess this is tricky if we want to be able to test libc++ with<br>
different compilers or avoid version locking it too tightly with clang,<br>
though.<br>
<br>
<br>
I would really like to see more detailed testing. Maybe we could have optional<br>
checks on the text of the output with FileCheck (or clang's -verify) when using<br>
clang, and otherwise fall back on exit status?<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>
A first-order approximation, I suppose, would be to arrange for filecheck to check that clang/gcc/whatever spits out an error message containing the word "error" and the particular offending line number. I think this should be relatively compiler agnostic.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
cfe-commits mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><div class="im HOEnZb">
-- <br>
Jon Roelofs<br>
<a href="mailto:jonathan@codesourcery.com" target="_blank">jonathan@codesourcery.com</a><br>
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
cfe-commits mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">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/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>