[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Tests for formatter diagnostics + custom DiagnosticConsumer in API.

[Manuel Klimek]

Can't we put those tests into clang-tools-extra? After all, the diagnostic
approach seems to be bound much more to the tool than the library...


On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:
>
>> In this case I'd prefer to use VerifyDiagnosticConsumer, which is an
>> implementation of clang's "-verify" option. Any concerns?
>>
>
> I found a little problem with both FileCheck and "-verify" approaches:
> they both require a stand-alone binary, which it resides in
> clang-tools-extra.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> +1, seems like the better approach.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   This still seems like an awful lot of code for checking 2(!)
>>>> diagnostics. I'd actually vote for using FileCheck.
>>>>
>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D290
>>>>
>>>> BRANCH
>>>>   svn
>>>>
>>>> ARCANIST PROJECT
>>>>   clang
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Kornienko | Software Engineer | alexfh at google.com | +49 151
>> 221 77 957
>> Google Germany GmbH | Dienerstr. 12 | 80331 München
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Kornienko | Software Engineer | alexfh at google.com | +49 151 221
> 77 957
> Google Germany GmbH | Dienerstr. 12 | 80331 München
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130114/90287030/attachment.html>