I don't have a better idea.
~Craig
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:32 PM Alex Bradbury <a...@igalia.com> wrote:
> On 2023-02-14 19:56, Craig Topper wrote:
> > How does this interact with the CHECK-NOTs above it. Does it check
> > that they don't appear before the __riscv_i but would be allowed after
> > it?
>
> Thanks for the post-commit review. I think you're right.
>
> It looks like the easiest fix is probably move the __riscv_i check out
> of that block of CHECK-NOTs and just add a new:
>
> // RUN: %clang -target riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu -march=rv32i -x c -E
> -dM %s \
> // RUN: -o - | FileCheck %s
> // RUN: %clang -target riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu -march=rv64i -x c -E
> -dM %s \
> // RUN: -o - | FileCheck %s
> // CHECK: __riscv_i 2000000{{$}}
>
> Do you agree, or am I missing a better alternative?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
