[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

Tue Oct 27 09:37:31 PDT 2020

MaskRay added a comment.

In D88566#2317248 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566#2317248>, @stuij wrote:

> Hi @MaskRay. Yes, so we're seeing a warning specific to our Armcompiler toolchain, so I'm guessing that isn't relevant to OSS LLVM:
> `armclang: warning: '--target=x86_64-unknown-linux' is not supported.`

The test uses '-###' and nothing related to X86 backend (-DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD does not include X86), so the intention may be quetionable.

> As David Green pointed out, we have a perfectly fine workaround. But I figured that a similar situation might crop up in OSS LLVM, and this way the test is a bit more future proof, and we might spare some future head-scratching.

If this cannot be reproduced with the OSS LLVM, I am not sure you should adjust such a test.

================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15
 // RUN:   FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN
-// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning:
+// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: 'fuse-ld'

----------------
stuij wrote:
> MaskRay wrote:
> > How does this line trigger unrelated warnings? Can you dump it?
> see my top-level comment
The impoerant bit is that the original message disallows any warning. The new message with an incorrect 'fuse-ld' (instead of '-fuse-ld') seems really questionable.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566