xbolva00 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:
> > xbolva00 wrote:
> > > nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > or use select,
> > > "expected %select('XX'| 'XX or 'YY')" for generalization
> > Yeah, good idea.
> I went with "expected one of". Reasoning: I don't think %select scales as
> simply in comparison. PTAL.
Your suggestion sounds good to me as well.
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
