DavidSpickett added a comment.
> I found the old way cannot verify if there are some extra outputs between two
> different CHECK-SAME. So I changed to CHECK-NEXT.
In principle I agree but did you have this failure mode actually happen?
> But it will introduce bad format issue. Anyway, the old way has broken
> clang-format already. So I would prefer the CHECK-NEXT. WDYT?
Not sure I like crazy long lines, but I see that -NEXT then -SAME would fall to
the same issue.
Arm targets are just checking that we print *some* list of CPUs, others are
putting the full list. Which isn't great because if you add a new CPU it's
possible you'll not get a failure here. I looked for other tests that might
check the exact set of CPUs but this is the only one.
I think a reasonable compromise is to -NEXT the `note: valid target CPU values
are: <at least one cpu name>` then -SAME the rest. Check the last line ends in
`{{$}}`. That limits where extra stuff can sneak in and means you can read the
file and it's failure output more easily. (each -SAME line has multiple CPUs on
it so that limits how much can be missed)
If you feel like adding the full CPU list to the Arm targets go ahead.
> Anyway, the old way has broken clang-format already.
What does clang-format complain about? This is a test file so formatting is
less of a concern than being readable for maintainers and having useful
FileCheck output. Splitting the matches enables that.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D110798/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D110798
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
