jdoerfert added a comment. In D93078#2500040 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078#2500040>, @mtrofin wrote:
> In D93078#2500032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078#2500032>, @jdoerfert wrote: > >> In D93078#2499996 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078#2499996>, @mtrofin wrote: >> >>> In D93078#2499995 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078#2499995>, @jdoerfert >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure how this is more helpful. What is the use case where this way >>>> of warning helps? >>> >>> For tests other than attributor, that explicitly set FileCheck >>> --allow-unused-prefixes=true, these warnings mean that there will be unused >>> prefixes (those listed) >> >> Should not we check for that flag in the RUN line then and only warn for >> unused prefixes when it is set. If there is no prefix we should obviously >> always warn. > > That's a good idea. Probably we'd need to also make sure that the unused > prefixes are all on RUN lines with --allow-unused-prefixes=true. > > I'm also not sure how lit.local.cfg interacts with the test prefix updater: > currently, the only cases where we bulk-want to allow unused prefixes is the > Attributor tests. If you were going to add the flag explicitly, that'd also > work. Or just the option to the update_test_prefix that says "ok with > duplicates, don't warn" I can add the option explicitly (D94744 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94744>). We should look for the filecheck one if possible, two options means double the hassle. That said, why are we warning in both FileCheck and update_test_check, it seems to be unnecessary to do the latter. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93078 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
