Unique_Usman added a comment.
In D148601#4301977 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4301977>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> Thank you for working on this! These changes should come with test coverage
> (we have a handful of verifier tests in `clang/test/Frontend` -- you can add
> a new test file there), but I don't think a release note is required because
> this is a fix for internal functionality. The test should cover the simple
> case of `-verify=something` as well as a more complex test with
> `-verify=something, something_else`.
Hello, I have been going through the other verfiier test, so basicallhy the new
test file will test if the error output generated by -verify=something and
`-verify=something, something_else` is the expected output right?
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendKinds.td:175-176
def err_verify_invalid_no_diags : Error<
"%select{expected|'expected-no-diagnostics'}0 directive cannot follow "
"%select{'expected-no-diagnostics' directive|other expected directives}0">;
def err_verify_no_directives : Error<
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Should we be handling this situation at the same time, as it's effectively
> the same concern? e.g., https://godbolt.org/z/4Mn1rW9oa
Hello, do you meant if we should handle when value is passed to -verify and
when it is not together?
I will say yes, the solution handle the situation whenever the value is passed
to verify and at the same time was able to handle whenever value is not
passed(it output the default which is 'expected-no-diagnostics',).
Do you think otherwise?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
