[PATCH] D148601: [Clang] Handle Error message to output proper Prefix

Tue Apr 25 15:38:45 PDT 2023

Unique_Usman added a comment.

In D148601#4295719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4295719>, @tbaeder wrote:

> In D148601#4279604 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4279604>, @Unique_Usman wrote:
>
>> In D148601#4279334 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4279334>, @tbaeder wrote:
>>
>>> I am not 100% sure about the semantics of passing multiple prefixes, i.e. if the error is emitted for all prefixes individually or if it's only emitted if no `expected` line for any of the prefixes is found. In the latter case we should probably add all the prefixes to the error message.
>>
>> I tested different scenerios e.g added more than one RUN lines with different value of -verify, what I concluded on is that if we have multiple  RUN lines with each of them having no directive, the prefixes generated is always of the first occurence  with no  expected directive so, the error is always generated for the first occurence with no expected directive.
>
> Yeah but I think you can do `-verify=foo,bar`(?) in which case the list f prefixes would actually have more than one item.

I used -verify=foo,bar but, the prefixes still have just only one item, in the case bar. Does this the implementation of getting the prefixes is faulty?

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601