MaskRay added a comment. In D88566#2317248 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566#2317248>, @stuij wrote:
> Hi @MaskRay. Yes, so we're seeing a warning specific to our Armcompiler > toolchain, so I'm guessing that isn't relevant to OSS LLVM: > `armclang: warning: '--target=x86_64-unknown-linux' is not supported.` The test uses '-###' and nothing related to X86 backend (-DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD does not include X86), so the intention may be quetionable. > As David Green pointed out, we have a perfectly fine workaround. But I > figured that a similar situation might crop up in OSS LLVM, and this way the > test is a bit more future proof, and we might spare some future > head-scratching. If this cannot be reproduced with the OSS LLVM, I am not sure you should adjust such a test. ================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN -// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: +// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: 'fuse-ld' ---------------- stuij wrote: > MaskRay wrote: > > How does this line trigger unrelated warnings? Can you dump it? > see my top-level comment The impoerant bit is that the original message disallows any warning. The new message with an incorrect 'fuse-ld' (instead of '-fuse-ld') seems really questionable. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
