<div dir="ltr">For all of these changes: why/where are they actually useful?<div><br></div><div>Previous enhancements of FileCheck have mostly been added when needed by a test. It would greatly help your case for adding these new enhancements to show some tests which would be improved, or have greater clarity, by the use of these features.<br><div><br></div></div><div>I'm particularly skeptical about "3. <span style="font-size:12.8px">Expressions repeat for CHECK", "5. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">CHECK-LABEL-DAG", and (as noted before "7. </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px">Wildcard for prefixes" and "8. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Prefix with regular expressions"</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">For "6. </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Check statement for words only" -- I think it might be better to just make that be the ONLY behavior, rather than an additional option -- if you intended to end a match in the middle of a word, stick {{[^ ]*}} on it.</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There was idea to add new directives to FileCheck:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Directive to use some patterns as named template with or without parameters.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>CHECK-INCLUDE - Directive to include other file with checks to another.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Expressions repeat for CHECK - If statement should be checked several times repeat modifiers {n}, {n,m} , {,n}, {n,}, *, + can be used.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Repeat in regexs - Repeat with current number should become available by using {n}, {n,m} , {,n}, {n,}<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>CHECK-LABEL-DAG - Not <span style="color:black">sequential order of labels.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Check statement for words only - // CHECK-WORD, // CHECK-WORD-NEXT, // CHECK-WORD-SAME, // CHECK-WORD-DAG, // CHECK-WORD-NOT.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>7.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u><span style="color:black">Wildcard for prefixes - If some statements should be checked regardless prefix, it should be used //{{*}}, //{{*}}-NEXT, //{{*}}-SAME and etc.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span>8.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>Prefix with regular expressions - If statement should be checked if prefix matches some regular expression, it should be used {{regex}}:, {{regex}}-NEXT and etc.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More information in file <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wAKNzU7-S2EeK1-aADwgP8dEiKfByKNazonybCQW3zs/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wAKNzU7-S2EeK1-aADwgP8dEiKfByKNazonybCQW3zs/edit?usp=sharing</a>.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now we have prototype with these features. It’s tested on LLVM 3.8.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There was found unsupported before directive in old test. Bug about this -
<a href="https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27852" target="_blank">https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27852</a>.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is about 6% slowdown with new features when we tested them on 3.8.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see that there are some changes in FileCheck LLVM 3.9 with new features too. We can publish patch for 3.8 and it can be adapted for LLVM 3.9. Is it interesting for anyone? And how will be better to publish patch as for 3.8 or for 3.9?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Elena.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>