On Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:47 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
Any particular reason you prefer this (adding a new expect feature)
over just using -Werror (without -verify at all) for tests that are
intended not to produce any diagnostics?
I don't mind really, just seems like unnecessary work to me & I'm
wondering if I'm missing something
Actually, its not actually much difference in terms of work. The change
required to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer is in the range of 15 lines (approx!),
but then there are changes to all the test-cases to either change -verify
to -Werror or add the line "// expected-no-diagnostics". This is the major
work since there are in the region of 550 tests to which this applies. I've
already made the alterations to VerifyDiagnosticConsumer and to most of the
test-cases, i.e. to all but a handful which didn't match the criteria of my
automated script, and which I will adjust by hand.
Personally, I think it is a good change to make since it adds a useful
function (i.e. to check explicitly for no diagnostics), makes test-cases
using -verify more fool-proof, and is IMHO better than using -Werror instead
since this requires people to remember to use this instead.
Cheers
Andy
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
