[cfe-commits] r164677 -

[Richard Smith]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>> Alternatively (and slightly more generally) how about teaching -verify
> to
> >>> fail if it doesn't find any expected-* comments to check (like
> FileCheck
> >>> does)?
> >>
> >> That wouldn't have helped in this case though, would it? there's no
> >> expected- comment in this file.
> >
> > Wut? I think that what Richard was proposing elegantly addresses this
> > case. Basically, it fails when it doesn't see an expected-* comment.
>
> Right. This test here doesn't have an expected-* comment.
>
> > Since stdin is empty, then there would be no expected-* comment, so
> > the test would fail.
>
> The fixed test would fail too.


Yes, that's a great point. We could add some kind of
expected-no-diagnostics marker (or -verify-no-diagnostic switch), or to
change the test to use, say, -Werror instead of -verify (which would mean
we'd no longer have caught the missing %s), but it certainly takes the
shine off the idea.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120927/ff4f887b/attachment.html>