RosieSumpter added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Sema/aarch64-sve2-intrinsics/acle_sve2_imm_n.cpp:25
+{
+ // expected-error-re@+1 3 {{argument value {{[0-9]+}} is outside the valid
range [0, 7]}}
+ EXPAND_XZM_FUNC(SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svqshlu,_n_s8,,), pg, svundef_s8(), -1);
----------------
paulwalker-arm wrote:
> RosieSumpter wrote:
> > paulwalker-arm wrote:
> > > I've not seen this before, presumably it's short hand instead of needing
> > > to repeat multiple identical `expected-error` check lines? If so, is it
> > > worth using this throughout the test files and essentially only require
> > > one `expected-error` per function or does this only work here because the
> > > `EXPAND...` macro emits its three function calls on the same line?
> > Yes it lets you specify how many times you expect the diagnostic to appear,
> > but as you said it only works when the diagnostics are emitted on the same
> > line so I'm not sure there's a way to reduce the number of `expected-error`
> > lines any more than this
> OK, thanks for checking. To be honest I'm not sure why we need the
> `EXPAND_XZM_FUNC` macro given `SVE_ACLE_FUNC` worked fine before. To my eye
> it kind of ruins the flow, but hey-ho I'll not worry about it.
>
> Assuming I've not screwed up I think you're missing tests for
> `SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svrshrnb,_n_s16,,)` and `SVE_ACLE_FUNC(svrshrnt,_n_s16,,)`.
I've removed the macro - agree that it ruins the flow
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123605/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D123605
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
