aaron.ballman added inline comments.

================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersNodeTest.cpp:1547
+  std::string ObjCString =
+    "#pragma clang diagnostic ignored \"-Wobjc-root-class\"\n"
+    "@protocol Proto "
----------------
kastiglione wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > kastiglione wrote:
> > > kastiglione wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > Instead of using a pragma for this, I think it would make more sense 
> > > > > to just modify `matchesObjC()` to disable the diagnostic. This is 
> > > > > only intended to test the dynamic AST matchers, so the diagnostics 
> > > > > are not useful in that case anyway.
> > > > `matchesConditionally()` accepts only one compiler arg, so putting the 
> > > > diagnostics here was a smaller change than refactoring that function. 
> > > > Do you think it would be better to refactor `matchesConditionally()`?
> > > I notice that many other tests have warnings. Should these tests just 
> > > allow the warnings to be emitted?
> > We generally let the warnings go -- it's not harmful to have them. However, 
> > if this is a warning that's likely to trigger on most tests, there's no 
> > harm in suppressing it either.
> Sounds good, I'm for suppressing them. Should I refactor 
> `matchesConditionally()` to allow multiple compile args, and disable these 
> warnings from `matchesObjC()`?
Yes, I think that's the way to go.


================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTest.h:123
     Code, AMatcher, true,
-    "", FileContentMappings(), "input.m");
+    "-fobjc-runtime=macosx", FileContentMappings(), "input.m");
 }
----------------
kastiglione wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > kastiglione wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Can you explain why this change is required?
> > > `Code` was not being evaluated as Objective-C 2, which resulted in 
> > > warnings and errors for the test this diff introduces. Setting the 
> > > runtime was the first approach I tried, and it worked so I went with it 
> > > without looking into why it was necessary. Now that you've asked, I 
> > > stepped through and found that the `i386-unknown-unknown` triple is 
> > > resulting in the use of an ELF toolchain and GCC objc runtime.
> > > 
> > > It can be changed to `-fobjc-nonfragile-abi`, which seems better than a 
> > > specific runtime, do you agree? Is there any reason to not have 
> > > Objective-C 2 be the default?
> > I think -fobjc-nonfragile-abi may be fine, but I guess I'm surprised that 
> > ObjC1 didn't require any specific runtime and ObjC2 requires one or else 
> > you get errors (warnings are fine, however -- we have plenty of those in 
> > these tests).
> > 
> > Perhaps it's time to fix the FIXME in `matchesConditionally()` so that we 
> > don't need to specify the triple at all, and then you won't need to specify 
> > the runtime? I don't think that should hold up this patch, however.
> > I'm surprised that ObjC1 didn't require any specific runtime and ObjC2 
> > requires one or else you get errors
> 
> I think this is because the existing ObjC in this test was small in size and 
> coverage of syntax/features. Given the variable name `Objc1String`, it was 
> probably written to avoid ObjC2 specific abi/features.
Fair enough


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30854



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to