azabaznov added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/features.cl:1 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple spir-unknown-unknown -finclude-default-header %s -E -dM -o - -x cl -cl-std=CL2.0 -cl-ext=-all \ +// RUN: | FileCheck -match-full-lines %s --check-prefix=FEATURES ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > since `-cl-ext=-all` doesn't affect the header functionality I suggest to > drop it and use one one line with `-finclude-default-header`. Parsing time > with this header is 300x slower so we should minimise its use in tests to > avoid negative impact on clang testing. > > Would it make sense to add a line without the header with `-cl-std=CL2.0` > or/and `-cl-std=CL1.2` to check that there are indeed no macros defined? > Would it make sense to add a line without the header with -cl-std=CL2.0 > or/and -cl-std=CL1.2 to check that there are indeed no macros defined? I think this makes no sense since we are planning to use these macros only internally for headers. Or if it's planned to include `opencl-c-base.h` by default, then this kind of lines can be eliminated for < 3.0 at all. ================ Comment at: clang/test/SemaOpenCL/features.cl:14 +#ifndef __opencl_c_int64 +#error "Macro __opencl_c_int64 should be defined" +#endif ---------------- Anastasia wrote: > Do you want to add -verify and expected-no-diagnostics directive for this or > just change to FileCheck too? Ok, I think I'll use FileCheck to be consistent. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95776/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95776 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
