nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/stack-protector-guard.c:38 // CHECK-GS: "-cc1" {{.*}}"-mstack-protector-guard-reg=gs" -// INVALID-REG: error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=','for X86, valid arguments to '-mstack-protector-guard-reg=' are:fs gs' +// INVALID-REG: error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=', expected: fs gs ---------------- nickdesaulniers wrote: > xbolva00 wrote: > > Not very happy with suggestion, maybe worse than before. It sounds to me > > that now this suggests > > > > "-mstack-protector-guard-reg=fs gs" which is a bad suggestion... > > > > Better (?): > > error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=', expected 'XX > > or 'YY' > > > > as both use sites suggest two values, this wording could be good enough. > In the follow up commit, D100919, this flag will have 3 values. Perhaps: error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=', expected one of: fs gs Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101387/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101387 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits