[PATCH] D79936: [FileCheck] Add function call support to numerical expressions.

[Thomas Preud'homme via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

thopre added a comment.

In D79936#2066160 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936#2066160>, @thopre wrote:

> In D79936#2065837 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936#2065837>, @jhenderson wrote:
>
> > In D79936#2062802 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936#2062802>, @paulwalker-arm wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to know if it's going to be a requirement to support the reporting of overflow/underflow for the builtins in my patch.  Originally I had gone down the llvm route of making the operations signed rather than the data but I see the signedness patch implements the opposite.  Ultimately I need to know if there's light at the end of the tunnel or whether to give up and just write ugly tests.
> >
> >
> > (Wrote this comment before I saw you added overflow/underflow support, but leaving it because it might give an idea of my thought process on why): Not quite sure I fully followed this comment. I think my preference would be to error out for overflows/underflows, rather than silently allowing them. If things are going to be significantly more complex adding them but you are also going to address them immediately, I'm okay with it being deferred to a future patch. What I don't want long-term is for people to be able to write unintentionally broken test cases because they happen to be triggering underflow/overflow behaviour. Broken test cases are bad!
> >
> > In D79936#2064448 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936#2064448>, @paulwalker-arm wrote:
> >
> > > I have a clang-format query.  I'm getting failures because clang-format is suggesting to use "-<space><digit>" to format a negative number.  This doesn't seem correct to me and is not the style I see for existing code in FileCheckTests.cpp.  Is this something I can ignore?
> >
> >
> > @thopre ran into this recently too. I consider it a bug in clang-format personally, so you can ignore it, but if @thopre hasn't already, you should file a clang-format bug so that it can get fixed.
>
>
> I'm planning to take a look at this clang-format bug today.


Seems to be related to the use of operator. I've created PR46157 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46157>


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D79936