[PATCH] Add CHECK-LABEL directive to FileCheck to allow more accurate error messages and error recovery
Michael Gottesman
mgottesman at apple.com
Thu Jul 11 12:58:07 PDT 2013
I proposed the same thing some time ago and IIRC Daniel had some problem with it (which I don’t remember right now).
(CCing Daniel if he has any input).
Michael
On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Actually, I would be ok with CHECK-BOUND as well.
> Eli, is that OK to you? And does anyone else want to chime in?
> I will expand the docs either way.
> Thanks,
> Stephen
>
> I'm not sure what BOUND means in this case? And how is it different from BOUNDARY?
>
> I'm just thinking of someone reading the test file and looking at all the directives. BOUNDARY conveys a spatial meaning and it's easy to intuitively remember what its semantics are. My opposition to LABEL was because LABEL conveyed no such meaning and I think it would be confusing. As for BOUND vs. BOUNDARY, that's really a minor issue and perhaps my knowledge of English fails me here, but I'd be happy to hear the reasoning.
>
> Eli
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Thanks Owen; Andy (Trick) off-list says he thinks it's a good idea, too.
> >
> > Eli B. (also off-list) thinks that the documentation can be approved
> > and also suggests that the name CHECK-BOUNDARY is better. Anyone else
> > have an opinion?
> >
> > I much prefer CHECK-LABEL to CHECK-BOUNDARY myself, but I am willing
> > to paint the bike shed whatever color others can agree on.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not familiar enough with the FileCheck internals to comment on the implementation, but I *really* like this feature. I've spent way too much time over the years tracking down cryptic FileCheck errors that would have been solved by this.
> >>
> >> --Owen
> >>
> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone review this patch? It adds a new directive type called
> >>> "CHECK-LABEL" to FileCheck...
> >>>
> >>> If present in a match file, FileCheck will use these directives to
> >>> split the input into blocks that are independently processed, ensuring
> >>> that a CHECK does not inadvertently match a line in a different block
> >>> (which can lead to a misleading/useless error message when the error
> >>> is eventually caught). Also, FileCheck can now recover from errors
> >>> within blocks by continuing to the next block.
> >>>
> >>> As an example, I purposely introduced the a switch fall-through bug in
> >>> the last patch I submitted to llvm-commits ("Allow FMAs in safe math
> >>> mode in some cases when one operand of the fmul is either exactly 0.0
> >>> or exactly 1.0")...
> >>>
> >>> Bug diff:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
> >>> b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
> >>> index 0290afc..239b119 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
> >>> +++ b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/DAGCombiner.cpp
> >>> @@ -5791,7 +5791,7 @@ static bool isExactlyZeroOrOne(const
> >>> TargetLowering &TLI, const SDValue &Op) {
> >>> continue;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> - break;
> >>> +// break;
> >>> case ISD::FADD:
> >>> if (ConstantFPSDNode *V0CFP =
> >>> dyn_cast<ConstantFPSDNode>(V->getOperand(0))) {
> >>>
> >>> The single error message without CHECK-LABEL is:
> >>>
> >>> ; CHECK-SAFE: test_add_8
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:125:2: note: scanning from here
> >>> .cfi_endproc
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:127:10: note: possible intended match here
> >>> .globl _test_add_10
> >>> ^
> >>>
> >>> The error messages with CHECK-LABEL are:
> >>>
> >>> ; CHECK-SAFE: vmulsd
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:87:2: note: scanning from here
> >>> .align 4, 0x90
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:95:2: note: possible intended match here
> >>> vsubsd %xmm0, %xmm3, %xmm0
> >>> ^
> >>> fp-contract.ll:118:15: error: expected string not found in input
> >>> ; CHECK-SAFE: vmulsd
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:102:2: note: scanning from here
> >>> .align 4, 0x90
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:109:2: note: possible intended match here
> >>> vsubsd %xmm2, %xmm3, %xmm2
> >>> ^
> >>> fp-contract.ll:288:15: error: expected string not found in input
> >>> ; CHECK-SAFE: vmulsd
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:258:2: note: scanning from here
> >>> .align 4, 0x90
> >>> ^
> >>> <stdin>:266:2: note: possible intended match here
> >>> vsubsd %xmm0, %xmm3, %xmm0
> >>> ^
> >>>
> >>> The three error messages in the CHECK-LABEL case exactly pinpoint the
> >>> source lines of the actual problem in three separate blocks; the
> >>> single error message given without CHECK-LABEL is (imho) much less
> >>> useful.
> >>>
> >>> (In this case, the non-CHECK-LABEL version happens to error on the on
> >>> a label line, so the user could presume that the error happened in the
> >>> block immediately before test_add_8, which is correct, but in general
> >>> this might not be true; the only thing that can be concluded is that
> >>> the error happened sometime before test_add_8.)
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if you have any feedback.
> >>>
> >>> Stephen
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: Stephen Lin <swlin at apple.com>
> >>> Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:21 PM
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] Add CHECK-LABEL directive to FileCheck to allow more
> >>> accurate error messages and error recovery
> >>> To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I went ahead and renamed it CHECK-LABEL and rebased, since I
> >>> think it’s better :)
> >>> -Stephen
> >>> <check-label.patch>_______________________________________________
> >>> llvm-commits mailing list
> >>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> llvm-commits mailing list
> >> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130711/aba2eabe/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list