[llvm-dev] [RFC] Improving FileCheck

[Joel E. Denny via llvm-dev]

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:58 PM Jon Roelofs <jroelofs at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:03 PM Joel E. Denny <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jon Roelofs via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
> All of these are variants in some form or another of comments that contain
>>> the check prefix, but which are intentionally not actual CHECK lines.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for working on this.  That report makes me think the diagnostic is
>> going to be frustrating.  What do you think?
>>
>
> This seems small compared to the number of tests, and even smaller
> compared to the number of total lines of test. It's also small compared to
> the number of true positives it has found.
>
> These cases can all be easily reworded to avoid the new diagnostic, and we
> could even add the preferred spelling to avoid it in the diagnostic
> itself, i.e. "if you want to avoid this, surround with backticks" (or
> whatever we decide on).
>
> IMO, that makes it worthwhile even despite a little discomfort.
>

OK.  You've been looking at it more than I have.

Which of the heuristic proposals are you testing with now?

Any interest in introducing a FileCheck comment syntax?  Maybe the regex is
'\bRUN:|\bCOM:'?  "COM:" would likely be clearer than directive name
mangling, either when "fixing" comments for this diagnostic or when just
trying to disable a directive for debugging, etc.

Joel


>
> Jon
>
>
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200418/810f1dbf/attachment.html>