[PATCH] D126291: [flang][Driver] Update link job on windows

[Andrzej Warzynski via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

awarzynski added inline comments.


================
Comment at: flang/test/Driver/linker-flags.f90:51
+! MSVC-NOT: libcmt
+! MSVC-NOT: oldnames
+! MSVC-SAME: "[[object_file]]"
----------------
rovka wrote:
> awarzynski wrote:
> > rovka wrote:
> > > mmuetzel wrote:
> > > > Lines 50-51 seem to be duplicates of lines 44-45. Is this intentional?
> > > Yes, I don't want those to appear either before or after the Fortran libs. I guess if we wanted to be pedantic we'd also check that they don't appear after the object_file, or between the libs and the subsystem, but that seems a bit much.
> > Based on the [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-check-same-directive | docs ]], I'd say that this would be the idiomatic way to do this:
> > ```lang=bash
> > ! MSVC-LABEL:
> > ! MSVC-NOT: 
> > ! MSVC-SAME:
> > ```
> > IIUC, the following would only be needed if there's a potential for `libcmt` or `oldnames` to appear on a separate line:
> > ```
> > ```lang=bash
> > ! MSVC-LABEL:
> > ! MSVC-NOT: 
> > ! MSVC-SAME:
> > ! MSVC-NOT:
> > ```
> > But this wouldn't happen, right? (there's going to be only one linker invocation). Also, you could just use [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#options | --implicit-check-not ]] :)
> > Based on the [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-check-same-directive | docs ]], I'd say that this would be the idiomatic way to do this:
> > ```lang=bash
> > ! MSVC-LABEL:
> > ! MSVC-NOT: 
> > ! MSVC-SAME:
> > ```
> 
> Based on the same docs, I would say it shouldn't be enough to mention it just once. But that's just what I expect, the docs are completely unhelpful about the actual behaviour here. For instance, I would expect to be able to write
> ```
> ! MSVC-NOT: should-only-come-after-X
> ! MSVC-SAME: X
> ```
> If the MSVC-NOT applies to the whole line, then lines with 'X should-come-after-X' get rejected, but imo they should be accepted (I'll admit I didn't actually verify this, and anyway the implicit-check-not makes the whole discussion moot).
> 
> > IIUC, the following would only be needed if there's a potential for `libcmt` or `oldnames` to appear on a separate line:
> > ```
> > ```lang=bash
> > ! MSVC-LABEL:
> > ! MSVC-NOT: 
> > ! MSVC-SAME:
> > ! MSVC-NOT:
> > ```
> 
> I agree that if there's no MSVC-SAME after the last MSVC-NOT, then the MSVC-NOT would apply to the following line. 
> 
> > But this wouldn't happen, right? (there's going to be only one linker invocation). Also, you could just use [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#options | --implicit-check-not ]] :)
> 
> Wooow 😍 I didn't know about that one, I'll definitely update the test to use it, thanks! 
> Based on the same docs, I would say it shouldn't be enough to mention it just once. 

I'm re-rereading the docs and agree. Sounds like `--implicit-check-not` is the best option.

> For instance, I would expect to be able to write
> ```
> ! MSVC-NOT: should-only-come-after-X
> ! MSVC-SAME: X
> ```
> If the MSVC-NOT applies to the whole line, then lines with 'X should-come-after-X' get rejected

I think that it //should// and //is// accepted. Example below:

**file.f90**
```lang=bash
! RUN: cat %S/test.f90 | FileCheck %s

! CHECK-LABEL: my-label
! CHECK-NOT: should-only-come-after-X
! CHECK-SAME: X
! CHECK-SAME: should-only-come-after-X
```

**test.f90**
```lang=bash
my-label X should-only-come-after-X
```
I copied the above into the Driver test dir and run like this:
```
$ bin/llvm-lit -va ../../flang/test/Driver/file.f90
-- Testing: 1 tests, 1 workers --
PASS: Flang :: Driver/file.f90 (1 of 1)

Testing Time: 0.03s
  Passed: 1
```

Does this agree with your experiments?

#filecheck-is-confusing :)


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D126291/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D126291