JonasToth added a comment. Yes, you are write.
I would ensure in the script that `CHECK-MESSAGES XOR CHECK-NOTES` is used, to avoid the mistake i made. I can do it in this diff as well. Am 29.08.2018 um 20:29 schrieb Roman Lebedev via Phabricator: > lebedev.ri added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51381#1217047, @JonasToth wrote: > >> @lebedev.ri lets do it in the the other patch, to not split discussions. > > Let's do it here instead, since that differential requires some changes to > this script. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51381#1217047, @JonasToth wrote: > >> But what do you mean by `You would still have to duplicate the check-lines >> for error: though.`? > > In it's current state, `CHECK-MESSAGES` implies > `-implicit-check-not={{warning|error}}`, > and `CHECK-NOTES` will imply `-implicit-check-not={{note|error}}`. > I.e. they both imply `-implicit-check-not=error`. > So **if** the check produces any `error:` output, **and** you want to use > **both** the `CHECK-NOTES` and `CHECK-MESSAGES`, > you need to write the check-line for every `error: ` with both the > `CHECK-NOTES` and `CHECK-MESSAGES` prefixes. > This seems sub-optimal. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48714#1217044, @JonasToth wrote: > >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48714#1216989, @lebedev.ri wrote: >> >>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48714#1216537, @JonasToth wrote: >>> >>>> I had to revert the `CHECK-NOTES` change that @lebedev.ri introduced with >>>> his revision. It fails the test, i think there is an inconsistency or so >>>> in the check-clang-tidy script. I will try to figure out whats the issue. >>> >>> So what was the issue? Do you get the same results if you undo the >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D51381 and `s/CHECK-MESSAGES/CHECK-NOTES/`? >> >> You are right that replacing all of it with `CHECK-NOTES` works as well. >> >> `FileCheck` is run twice if you have `FIXMES` as well. Having another run >> for the notes is consistent with how it worked before. >> If we go for the catch-all-with-one approach it might be a good idea to >> ensure that only one of `CHECK-MESSAGES` or `CHECK-NOTES` is present in the >> file and adjust the check_clang_tidy.py script a little. > > I don't have a //strong// preference, but if that works i would **prefer** to > go that route, since that is what the initial intended semantics of the > `CHECK-NOTES`. > **If** that works for you? > > Repository: > > rCTE Clang Tools Extra > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D51381 Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51381 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
