================
@@ -1098,7 +1098,13 @@ void VerifyDiagnosticConsumer::CheckDiagnostics() {
// Produce an error if no expected-* directives could be found in the
// source file(s) processed.
if (Status == HasNoDirectives) {
- Diags.Report(diag::err_verify_no_directives).setForceEmit();
+ std::string directives;
+ if (Diags.getDiagnosticOptions().VerifyPrefixes.empty()) {
+ directives = "expected";
----------------
Sh0g0-1758 wrote:
yes, when there are no diagnostics passed in the verify, ie. when we pass
```-verify=``` only. In this case ```expected-no-directives``` should be the
error output when no directives are present. and when we pass ```-verify=foo```
then ```foo-no-diagnostics``` should be the error when no foo directives are
present. If I don't include this check, then with only ```-verify=``` it
results in a segmentation fault.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78338
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
