[cfe-commits] r164677 -

[Jordan Rose]

Well, we already have the "no-warning" convention for that. With the current behavior of -verify, that behaves as intended. But I can see how someone writing a NEW test would be inclined to just put "// expected-no-diagnostics" at the top of the file and not mark any particular lines, and if said test was later converted over to include some expected warnings...well, the original "potentially-warning" lines would never be annotated.

But neither -Werror nor expected-no-diagnostics changes this existing behavior, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Jordan


On Sep 30, 2012, at 14:53 , Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:

> Oh, I was imagining the expected-no-diagnostics to be localized. So
> that you could e.g. do
> 
> int foo(); // expected-no-diagnostics
> 
> int bar(cause_an_error<T>); // expected-error [...]
> 
> That way, you could, in the same file, assert both for the existence
> of diagnostics for certain code and that no diagnostics are emitted
> for other code.
> 
> For me the major downside of -Werror is that it is completely global,
> so that it's not possible to see exactly what the test is expecting to
> not emit diagnostics for.
> 
> --Sean Silva
> 
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Andy Gibbs <andyg1001 at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:47 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> 
>>> Any particular reason you prefer this (adding a new expect feature)
>>> over just using -Werror (without -verify at all) for tests that are
>>> intended not to produce any diagnostics?
>>> 
>>> I don't mind really, just seems like unnecessary work to me & I'm
>>> wondering if I'm missing something
>> 
>> 
>> Actually, its not actually much difference in terms of work.  The change
>> required to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer is in the range of 15 lines (approx!),
>> but then there are changes to all the test-cases to either change -verify to
>> -Werror or add the line "// expected-no-diagnostics".  This is the major
>> work since there are in the region of 550 tests to which this applies.  I've
>> already made the alterations to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer and to most of the
>> test-cases, i.e. to all but a handful which didn't match the criteria of my
>> automated script, and which I will adjust by hand.
>> 
>> Personally, I think it is a good change to make since it adds a useful
>> function (i.e. to check explicitly for no diagnostics), makes test-cases
>> using -verify more fool-proof, and is IMHO better than using -Werror instead
>> since this requires people to remember to use this instead.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Andy
>> 
>> 
>>