paulwalker-arm added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/aarch64-sve2-intrinsics/acle_sve2_imm_n.cpp:25
+{
+ // expected-error-re@+1 3 {{argument value {{[0-9]+}} is outside the valid
range [0, 7]}}
+ EXPAND_XZM_FUNC(SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svqshlu,_n_s8,,), pg, svundef_s8(), -1);
----------------
RosieSumpter wrote:
> paulwalker-arm wrote:
> > I've not seen this before, presumably it's short hand instead of needing to
> > repeat multiple identical `expected-error` check lines? If so, is it worth
> > using this throughout the test files and essentially only require one
> > `expected-error` per function or does this only work here because the
> > `EXPAND...` macro emits its three function calls on the same line?
> Yes it lets you specify how many times you expect the diagnostic to appear,
> but as you said it only works when the diagnostics are emitted on the same
> line so I'm not sure there's a way to reduce the number of `expected-error`
> lines any more than this
OK, thanks for checking. To be honest I'm not sure why we need the
`EXPAND_XZM_FUNC` macro given `SVE_ACLE_FUNC` worked fine before. To my eye it
kind of ruins the flow, but hey-ho I'll not worry about it.
Assuming I've not screwed up I think you're missing tests for
`SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svrshrnb,_n_s16,,)` and `SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svrshrnt,_n_s16,,)`.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/Sema/aarch64-sve2-intrinsics/acle_sve2_imm_rotation.cpp:17-40
+ // expected-error@+1 {{argument should be the value 90 or 270}}
+ SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svcadd,_s8,,)(svundef_s8(), svundef_s8(), 0);
+ // expected-error@+1 {{argument should be the value 90 or 270}}
+ SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svcadd,_u8,,)(svundef_u8(), svundef_u8(), 0);
+ // expected-error@+1 {{argument should be the value 90 or 270}}
+ SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svcadd,_s16,,)(svundef_s16(), svundef_s16(), 0);
+ // expected-error@+1 {{argument should be the value 90 or 270}}
----------------
I know we cannot test every number but `180` seems like a reasonable mistake
for people to make given the other complex number instructions so perhaps
alternate between `0` and `180` to give a little more coverage without
increasing the number of lines.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123605/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123605
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
