grimar marked an inline comment as done.
grimar added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp:1375-1377
+ // We do not allow using -implicit-check-not when an explicitly specified
+ // check prefix is not present in the input buffer.
+ if ((Req.IsDefaultCheckPrefix || FoundUsedPrefix) && !DagNotMatches.empty())
{
----------------
jdenny wrote:
> grimar wrote:
> > jdenny wrote:
> > > grimar wrote:
> > > > jdenny wrote:
> > > > > I find this logic confusing. Its goal appears to be to constrain
> > > > > when `DagNotMatches` are added to `CheckStrings`. However, the real
> > > > > goal is to constrain when FileCheck complains that there are no used
> > > > > prefixes. Would the following logic work?
> > > > >
> > > > > ```
> > > > > if (!FoundUsedPrefix && (ImplicitNegativeChecks.empty() ||
> > > > > !Req.IsDefaultCheckPrefix)) {
> > > > > errs() << "error: no check strings found with prefix"
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > }
> > > > > if (!DagNotMatches.empty()) {
> > > > > CheckStrings->emplace_back(
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > }
> > > > > ```
> > > > This looks better and works, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > (The code above has `DagNotMatches = ImplicitNegativeChecks;` line
> > > > which is also a bit confusing probably)
> > > > This looks better and works, thanks!
> > >
> > > Thanks for making that change.
> > >
> > > > (The code above has DagNotMatches = ImplicitNegativeChecks; line which
> > > > is also a bit confusing probably)
> > >
> > > I'm fine with that one. DagNotMatches starts out as
> > > ImplicitNegativeChecks, and CHECK-NOTs might be added later.
> > >
> > > I think the second sentence in the following comment still reflects the
> > > old logic:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > // When there are no used prefixes we report an error.
> > > // We do not allow using -implicit-check-not when an explicitly
> > > specified
> > > // check prefix is not present in the input buffer.
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Something like the following seems better to me:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > // When there are no used prefixes we report an error except in the
> > > case that
> > > // no prefix is specified explicitly but -implicit-check-not is
> > > specified.
> > > ```
> > >
> > > the real goal is to constrain when FileCheck complains that there are no
> > > used prefixes
> >
> > btw, do you know why FileCheck seems intentionally allows the case when
> > `--check-prefixes=KNOWN,UNKNOWN`?
> > I've mentioned in the description of D78110 that there are about 1000 tests
> > that have this. but is it a feature or a something that we might want to
> > fix?
> There was a long discussion about diagnostics like that over a year ago. I
> believe we described that case as prefixes that are defined but not used.
>
> In some of my downstream work, I often create FileCheck prefix schemes
> reflecting various combinations of features I want to test. For example:
> FOO, BAR, FOO-AND-BAR, FOO-NOT-BAR, etc. It's far easier to maintain those
> tests if I list all appropriate prefixes for each FileCheck command even if
> some prefixes are not currently used in the test file. I don't know if this
> use case exists upstream right now.
>
> Also, when developing or debugging tests involving many prefixes and many
> FileCheck commands, I think it could be painful to have to update all
> FileCheck commands every time you temporarily remove the only uses of some
> prefix.
>
> If you pursue this diagnostic, please make it optional, even if on by
> default. At one time, we discussed a warning system for such diagnostics.
> Warnings could be configurable via command-line options, possibly passed via
> the FILECHECK_OPTS env var so that it's easy to relax them during debugging
> or based on a test suite's specific needs.
>
> @probinson and @SjoerdMeijer might want to chime in as they were also part of
> previous discussions.
I see, thanks for details.
D78110 and this patch (which revealed rG09331fd7) showed that we had test cases
committed which
had unknown prefixes placed by mistake and hence false positives.
I remember how accidentally pushed on review the patch with the same issue and
nobody noticed..
I just think that making FileCheck stricter could prevent such issues.
If we'll have a consensus about making `--check-prefixes` stricter I'll be
happy to work on this.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78024/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78024
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
