Addressed in ddb704247b16002d916bba67e3aa9f54fd4bbace - thanks again.
Best,
Alex
On 2023-02-14 20:58, Craig Topper wrote:
> 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
