On Friday, July 06, 2012 5:00 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > On Jul 3, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> On Jul 3, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 5:18 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >>>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Andy Gibbs wrote: >>>> [...snip...] >>>>> In the case above, Module.h is shared across a number of tests. In some >>>>> tests the include file was parsed correctly and in others it was not. (I >>>>> made some comments about a net with holes in another post and this >>>>> is one example of where it applied!) Unfortunately, this incorrect >>>>> parsing >>>>> coincided with the cases where the diagnostic also not generated (if you >>>>> look at the original implementation you will understand why), so the >>>>> test-case bug was missed. Since the diagnostic sometimes is and >>>>> sometimes is not generated, hence the "0-1". >>>> >>>> I see. It doesn't look like the "umbrella header" warning >>>> (-Wincomplete-umbrella) >>>> is exercised anywhere else, though. Perhaps it should be put into a test of >>>> its own? (I think it's reasonable to make a separate "Umbrella.framework" >>>> because of the existing expectation in Module.framework.) >>> >>> Hmm, I'm not sure I understand enough about how the modules part of the >>> compiler >>> works to change a test-case so drastically. Would it not be better to get >>> this >>> changed by someone better qualified? >> >> Let's rope Doug in on this part. Doug, what exactly is -Wincomplete-umbrella >> for? > > It checks, at module build time, whether an umbrella header <Foo/Foo.h> > actually > includes all of the headers <Foo/*.h>. > >> Is it okay to just test it in one place, and make the "default" >> Module.framework >> a completely clean framework? > > Yes, that would be cleaner.
Attached is the updated test-case set for the -verify patches. I've stripped out the test-case relating to the part 6 patch since this is being left out for now. I also have not adjusted the test-case relating to the umbrella framework since I really don't feel confident to change a test-case for a feature I do not fully understand! I would suggest that following the commital of these patches, that someone else makes the necessary amendment to this particular test-case. The patch attached here as it stands fixes the test-case to ensure the test suite passes, but that is all. Cheers Andy
verify-part7.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
