[llvm-dev] FileCheck --allow-empty

[via llvm-dev]

(Sorry for the duplicate. Original didn’t make it to the list)

I don’t specifically remember what the relationship between `guard malloc` and `count 0` was here, but I’m pretty sure it was related to the count part more so than the llvm tools. Option (2) sounds like it avoids the “rely on external tools that may differ between environments” problem, and the rest of James’ motivation makes sense, so it sounds like the best way forward to me.

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 09:17, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I assume the "guard malloc" issue still exists - reading
> https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/ManagingMemory/Articles/MallocDebug.html
> - I'm guessing what happens is that some bots are running with the
> feature enabled and Clang/LLVM's tendency to never release some memory
> may be being flagged as memory leaks, so the processes print some
> debugging output about those leaks. (I'm /guessing/ if that's the
> case, people aren't especially intentionally running LLVM with these
> checks enabled (because they'd be too noisy to be actionable on every
> failure - but maybe they're still usable enough if you only look when
> you're investigating some other failure) but maybe have them enabled
> for all development work)
> 
> So I think (2) would not address the motivation for the original
> feature, which I /think/ is probably still a valid motivation. (CC'd
> Bogner to weigh in here)
> 
> And (1) doesn't necessarily seem like an improvement to me - still
> seems like a good chance of accidentally empty output being
> problematic and the sort of thing we'd want to opt-in to rather than
> have by default.
> 
> (that said - the existence of mechanisms that lead to extra output
> from LLVM programs under test seems a bit problematic to me - so if
> Bogner/others are up for making that not a thing, that'd be nice
> probably (perhaps the noisy output cases (leaks, rather than actual
> memory corruption/UB) can be disabled?))
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:45 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> By default, FileCheck will emit an error if you try to get it to check an empty file. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, since it might protect against certain unintended usages. However, in every use-case I know of, it's also combined with checks that essentially say "don't just allow the output to be empty, fail if it isn't". In some cases, those checks are slightly more specific (e.g. checking that a specific string is not present), but the presence of --allow-empty seems to me to imply that the output is actually empty, and therefore you could make the test less brittle against output changes by a more general check.
>> 
>> For example, the following could be used to check that an invocation doesn't produce a warning:
>> 
>> # RUN: llvm-objcopy a.o b.o 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --allow-empty
>> # CHECK-NOT: warning:
>> 
>> llvm-objcopy doesn't produce any output, so the --allow-empty is required. However, what if LLVM decided that warnings should be printed as "WARNING:" rather than "warning:"? This test would then start spuriously passing, even if llvm-objcopy started emitting warnings. A more robust version of the test would be:
>> 
>> # RUN: llvm-objcopy a.o b.o 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --allow-empty --implicit-check-not={{.}}
>> 
>> There's nothing stopping this being written now, but at this point, the --allow-empty seems a bit pointless, since the check implies the output should be empty.
>> 
>> I propose one of two options:
>> 1) Remove --allow-empty completely, and permit empty output. From the original commit (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140804/229905.html) it was added to allow pure check-not files, but for some reason `count 0` didn't work. It's possible the motivation no longer applies (I don't know what these "guard malloc" bots actually are, and whether they still exist). I'm not convinced by this option, since the empty output check may still be useful.
>> 2) Have `--allow-empty` imply `--implicit-check-not={{.}}`. I'd probably rename the option to `--expect-empty` or something similar. This wouldn't allow the case where a user doesn't care whether the output is actually empty or not, as long as it doesn't have a specific string, but I haven't come across any such test yet myself, nor do I think such tests are especially robust (see my example above), so this would be my preferred option.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> James
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev