nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/stack-protector-guard.c:38
// CHECK-GS: "-cc1" {{.*}}"-mstack-protector-guard-reg=gs"
-// INVALID-REG: error: invalid value {{.*}} in
'mstack-protector-guard-reg=','for X86, valid arguments to
'-mstack-protector-guard-reg=' are:fs gs'
+// INVALID-REG: error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=',
expected: fs gs
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> xbolva00 wrote:
> > Not very happy with suggestion, maybe worse than before. It sounds to me
> > that now this suggests
> >
> > "-mstack-protector-guard-reg=fs gs" which is a bad suggestion...
> >
> > Better (?):
> > error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=', expected 'XX
> > or 'YY'
> >
> > as both use sites suggest two values, this wording could be good enough.
> In the follow up commit, D100919, this flag will have 3 values.
Perhaps:
error: invalid value {{.*}} in 'mstack-protector-guard-reg=', expected one of:
fs gs
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101387/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D101387
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
