jroelofs added inline comments. ================ Comment at: tools/llvm-project/extra/test/clang-tidy/werrors-plural.cpp:7 @@ +6,3 @@ +// CHECK-WARN: warning: namespace 'j' not terminated with a closing comment [llvm-namespace-comment] +// CHECK-WERR: error: namespace 'j' not terminated with a closing comment [llvm-namespace-comment, -Werrors=] + ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > jroelofs wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > jroelofs wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > One of these tests should complete the -Werrors= chunk just to be > > > > > sure it's getting printed properly. > > > > Not sure what you mean here. Should I be printing the -Werrors argument > > > > as the user wrote it? (it isn't currently... this is just a hardcoded > > > > string). > > > Ah, I didn't pick up on that. What is the = for, then? > > I considered that part of the name of the flag. > > > > I can drop that if you think it looks better. Or print out the whole thing > > as the user wrote it, if you think that's useful (though -checks= and > > -Werrors= lines are probably pretty long...). > > > I would just drop the =; it seems like that suggests there should be more > text there. That would also be consistent with the way clang reports -Werror > diagnostics (error: unused variable 'i' [-Werror,-Wunused-variable]) ok, sounds good.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15528 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
