On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Alternatively (and slightly more generally) how about teaching -verify > to > >>> fail if it doesn't find any expected-* comments to check (like > FileCheck > >>> does)? > >> > >> That wouldn't have helped in this case though, would it? there's no > >> expected- comment in this file. > > > > Wut? I think that what Richard was proposing elegantly addresses this > > case. Basically, it fails when it doesn't see an expected-* comment. > > Right. This test here doesn't have an expected-* comment. > > > Since stdin is empty, then there would be no expected-* comment, so > > the test would fail. > > The fixed test would fail too. Yes, that's a great point. We could add some kind of expected-no-diagnostics marker (or -verify-no-diagnostic switch), or to change the test to use, say, -Werror instead of -verify (which would mean we'd no longer have caught the missing %s), but it certainly takes the shine off the idea.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
