[cfe-commits] r154776 - in /cfe/trunk/test: Analysis/objc-bool.m Headers/typedef_guards.c Lexer/utf-16.c Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c Sema/surpress-deprecated.c SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp

[David Blaikie]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Matthieu Monrocq
<matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 16 avril 2012 00:09, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Author: dblaikie
>> Date: Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> New Revision: 154776
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154776&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fix tests that weren't actually verifying anything.
>>
>> Passing -verify to clang without -cc1 or -Xclang silently passes (with a
>> printed warning, but lit doesn't care about that). This change adds -cc1
>> or,
>> as is necessary in one case, -Xclang to fix this so that these tests are
>> actually verifying as intended.
>>
>> I'd like to change the driver so this kind of mistake could not be made,
>> but
>> I'm not entirely sure how. Further, since the driver only warns about
>> unknown
>> flags in general, we could have similar bugs with a misspellings of
>> arguments
>> that would be nice to find.
>>
>> Modified:
>>    cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m
>>    cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c
>>    cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c
>>    cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c
>>    cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c
>>    cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Analysis/objc-bool.m Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: %clang --analyze %s -o %t -verify
>> +// RUN: %clang --analyze %s -o %t -Xclang -verify
>>
>>  // Test handling of ObjC bool literals.
>>
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Headers/typedef_guards.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only -verify %s
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
>>
>>  // NULL is rdefined in stddef.h
>>  #define NULL ((void*) 0)
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/utf-16.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: not %clang %s -fsyntax-only -verify
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -fsyntax-only -verify
>>  // rdar://7876588
>>
>>  // This test verifies that clang gives a decent error for UTF-16 source
>> files.
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Preprocessor/pragma_sysheader.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44
>> 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: %clang -verify -pedantic %s -fsyntax-only
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -pedantic %s -fsyntax-only
>>  // RUN: %clang_cc1 -E %s | FileCheck %s
>>  // rdar://6899937
>>  #include "pragma_sysheader.h"
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/Sema/surpress-deprecated.c Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: %clang -fsyntax-only -Wno-deprecated-declarations -verify %s
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -Wno-deprecated-declarations -verify %s
>>  extern void OldFunction() __attribute__((deprecated));
>>
>>  int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
>>
>> Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp
>> URL:
>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp?rev=154776&r1=154775&r2=154776&view=diff
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp (original)
>> +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/warn-everthing.cpp Sun Apr 15 17:09:44 2012
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -// RUN: %clang -Weverything -fsyntax-only %s -verify
>> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -Weverything -fsyntax-only %s -verify
>>
>>  // This previously crashed due to a bug in the CFG.  Exercising all
>>  // warnings helps check CFG construction.
>> @@ -8,6 +8,6 @@
>>   ~PR12271();
>>  };
>>
>> -void testPR12271() {
>> -  PR12271 a[1][1];
>> -}
>> \ No newline at end of file
>> +void testPR12271() { // expected-warning {{no previous prototype for
>> function 'testPR12271'}}
>> +  PR12271 a[1][1]; // expected-warning {{unused variable 'a'}}
>> +}
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
> The only way I would see lit actually reacting would be to terminate the
> processus with a non-0 result, which should be reported.

Right

> Perhaps that we could add a "developer" option provoking this kind of
> behavior for unknown flags and have lit expand %clang and %clang_cc1
> automatically with this flag. This flag should then be negated in the few
> tests that actually test the driver diagnostic.

Ideally, I'm wondering whether it makes sense to have even release
versions of clang produce a non-zero exit code for completely unknown
flags. If someone passes -foobar to clang, should we really silently
(wrt exit code, at least) succeed?

- David