tbaeder added a comment. In D154688#4498398 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154688#4498398>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D154688#4497967 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154688#4497967>, @tbaeder wrote: > >> When passing a different prefix via `-verify=foo`, the error messages now >> say "error: 'foo-error' diagnostics seen but not expected", etc. >> >> I'm often working in test files where two different prefixes are used and >> I'm always confused about which one of the two the error messages are >> talking about. > > What I'm confused by is that we list the line numbers of the failures, so the > prefix only seems like it's helpful in a case where two prefixes use the same > message and the same severity on the same line. e.g., `// foo-error > {{whatever}} bar-error {{whatever}}`. In the other cases, either the line > number is different, or the severity is different, or the message is > different which I thought was giving sufficient context. This is also reported as being on line 4: // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -fdiagnostics-print-source-range-info -verify=bar %s 2>&1 static_assert(true); // foo \ // bar-error {{failed}} which is also the case if line 4 contained another `foo-error {{failed}}` which didn't trigger, leaving developers wondering which one it is. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154688/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154688 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
