dstenb added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Frontend/dependency-gen-extradeps-phony.c:6-7 + +// CHECK: dependency-gen-extradeps-phony.o: 1.extra 2.extra +// CHECK-NOT: .c: +// CHECK: 1.extra: ---------------- vsapsai wrote: > I think it would be better to have a check > > // CHECK: dependency-gen-extradeps-phony.c > > Because you expect it to be there and it's not that simple to notice the > colon in `.c:`, so it's not immediately clear how CHECK-NOT is applied here. Do you mean replace the two checks with that? Isn't there a risk that that would match with `dependency-gen-extradeps-phony.c:`, which the not-checks would not pick up then? I added a CHECK-NEXT check for the input file so that we match that whole dependency entry at least. ================ Comment at: test/Frontend/dependency-gen-extradeps-phony.c:9-11 +// CHECK-NOT: .c: +// CHECK: 2.extra: +// CHECK-NOT: .c: ---------------- vsapsai wrote: > For these repeated CHECK-NOT please consider using `FileCheck > --implicit-check-not`. In this case it's not that important as the test is > small but it can still help to capture your intention more clearly. I'll add that in the next patch (and I'll keep that in mind for future changes). Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D44568 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
