gamesh411 added a comment. In D83717#2155066 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83717#2155066>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D83717#2152762 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83717#2152762>, @gamesh411 wrote: > > > In D83717#2150977 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83717#2150977>, @njames93 > > wrote: > > > > > Alternatively you could do something like this, though it would be a pain > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-argument-comment-gmock.cpp#L86 > > > > > > I have bitten the bullet, and have gone down this route. With relative > > numbering, the sections themselves are at least translation-invariant. Not > > the prettiest sight, tho. > > Thanks! > > > I almost think it would be nice FileCheck supported some directive like: > > // LINE-NAME: <LINENAME> > > > And corresponding check lines: > > [[<LINENAME>]] > [[<LINENAME>+N]] > [[<LINENAME>-N]] > > > Would result in the ability to write checks like this: > > void longjmp_handler() {// LINE-NAME: LONGJMP > longjmp(env, 255); > } > > ... > > void foo(){ > atexit(longjmp_handler); > // CHECK-NOTES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: exit-handler potentially calls > a jump function. Handlers should terminate by returning [cert-env32-c] > // CHECK-NOTES: :[[LONGJMP]]:1: note: handler function declared here > // CHECK-NOTES: :[[LONGJMP+1]]:3: note: jump function called here > } > > > Anyway that's a story for another day. My thoughts exactly! I also thought about anchor-points as a feature in file-check, as that would immensely increase the readability of the test-code in such cases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83717/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83717 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
