sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/builtins-ppc-error.c:51
void testCTF(int index) {
- vec_ctf(vsi, index); //expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_altivec_vcfsx' must be a constant integer}}
- vec_ctf(vui, index); //expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_altivec_vcfsx' must be a constant integer}}
+ vec_ctf(vsi, index); //expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_altivec_vcfsx' must be a constant integer}} expected-error
{{argument to '__builtin_altivec_vcfux' must be a constant integer}}
+ vec_ctf(vui, index); //expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_altivec_vcfsx' must be a constant integer}} expected-error
{{argument to '__builtin_altivec_vcfux' must be a constant integer}}
----------------
hmm, this doesn't exactly look right to me - we know the type of `vsi` so we
should only be considering the signed case I thought.
However the existing diagnostic for `vui` indicates that it's considering the
**signed** case, so I guess this is already broken/bad.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/builtins-systemz-zvector-error.c:424
+ vsc = vec_rl_mask(vsc, vuc, idx); // expected-error {{no matching function}}
\
+ // expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_s390_verimb' must be a constant integer}} \
+ // expected-error {{argument to
'__builtin_s390_verimh' must be a constant integer}} \
----------------
you may want to make these assertions fuzzier and possibly give a count rather
than repeating them, but I guess the owners of these headers would be best to
decide
================
Comment at: clang/test/Index/complete-switch.c:9
-// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -code-completion-at=%s:4:10 %s |
FileCheck %s -allow-empty
+// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -Xclang -fno-recovery-ast
-code-completion-at=%s:4:10 %s | FileCheck %s -allow-empty
// CHECK-NOT: COMPLETION: foo
----------------
nit: no need for xclang, this is cc1 already
I guess this is a crash test (and it also doesn't crash with recovery ast)?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/__try.c:55
+ // expected-error{{too few arguments to function call, expected 1, have
0}} \
+ // expected-error{{expected ';' after expression}}
}
----------------
this seems bad, am I missing something?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/enum.c:104
+ switch (PR7911V); // expected-error {{statement requires expression of
integer type}} \
+ // expected-warning {{switch statement has empty body}}
expected-note {{put the semicolon on a separate line to silence this warning}}
}
----------------
or just move the semicolon to suppress, pretty sure that's not what's being
tested here.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/typo-correction.c:56
+ f(THIS_IS_AN_ERROR, // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier
'THIS_IS_AN_ERROR'}}
+ afunction(afunction_)); // expected-error {{use of undeclared identifier
'afunction_'}}
}
----------------
what's up with this change?
Do we see the LHS is dependent/contains-errors and then give up on correcting
typos in the RHS?
Should we?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89046/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89046
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
