Is it really worth putting effort into -verify for this? I'd be okay with just
using FileCheck:
// CHECK: {{Inputs[/\\]declare-use[/\\]module.map}}:30:10: note: header file...
Jordan
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 2:10 , Vassil Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I am working on http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20507 Now the
> diagnostic gets issued for:
> Clang :: Modules/declare-use1.cpp
> Clang :: Modules/declare-use2.cpp
> Clang :: Modules/declare-use3.cpp
> Clang :: Modules/strict-decluse.cpp
>
> It says smth like: Modules/Inputs/declare-use/module.map:30:10: note: Header
> file 'unavailable.h' not present in module 'XF'
>
> I'd like to add an expected diag to the modulemap file. Eg:
> module XF {
> ...
> header "unavailable.h" // expected-note {{...}}
> ...
> }
>
> Is that the right way to go?
>
> If yes, VerifyDiagnosticConsumer requires some callbacks (such as
> HandleComment) which come from the Preprocessor. In the ModuleMapParser we
> use raw lexing (without PP at all) and I was wondering what would be the
> right way to go, in order to make the -verify flag work inside the module
> maps. One solution that I see is to pass the comment handlers from the PP to
> the ModuleMapParser, however IMO this would break the encapsulation. Do you
> have better ideas?
>
> Many thanks,
> Vassil
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
