On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Andy Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it's completely reasonable for me to fix up the test cases for my
unfinished, undocumented feature ;) It shouldn't block your (much appreciated!)
work on -verify.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
