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