[PATCH] Add ALL to FileCheck

[Stephen Lin]

Did we reach consensus about this?

I think I'm going to work on resolving PR16919 ("Can't use [[@LINE]]
in CHECK-LABEL") at some point in the near future, so if no one feels
like implementing the multiple prefix functionality, I might take that
myself, too.

Stephen

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> I agree with Renato here that multi-pass is a different feature. It's
>> arguable whether you would prefer multi-pass with separate prefixes or
>> one pass with multiple prefixes matching; you can come up with valid
>> use cases for either behavior. However, I think the later is more
>> intuitive as the default implementation of multiple prefixes, and is
>> also considerably simpler in implementation from what I remember of
>> FileCheck internals.
>
> I take back that last part; it seems like the entire source file is
> being copied into an in-memory buffer already so it wouldn't be hard
> to do either implementation. I still think the default implementation
> being "one pass, recognize multiple prefixes" makes more sense,
> though, since usually you want the shared code to recognize common
> features like function definitions and the unshared code to detect
> features in between those; if it's "multiple passes, each on a
> separate prefix" then there is no guarantee that the specific output
> is located in the right location relative to the generic output unless
> you duplicate the generic output for each prefix, which seems to
> defeat the purpose.
>
> Stephen