> -verify is already a negative check (it fails if any unexpected > diagnostics are produced) so I'm not sure what this > expected-no-diagnostics you are thinking of would do? Would you have to > put it on every line of code? Would it be entirely optional? If so, > what purpose would it serve compared to just a pure (non processed) > comment to the reader?
Oh yeah... I've only ever "consciously" used -verify in the positive sense (asserting that a diagnostic would be there). I guess my mind's eye wasn't looking at the "negative space" of the other check, which is the implicit "no other diagnostics than the expected ones". --Sean Silva On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > -verify is already a negative check (it fails if any unexpected > diagnostics are produced) so I'm not sure what this > expected-no-diagnostics you are thinking of would do? Would you have to > put it on every line of code? Would it be entirely optional? If so, > what purpose would it serve compared to just a pure (non processed) > comment to the reader? > From: Sean Silva > Sent: 10/1/2012 12:53 AM > To: Andy Gibbs > Cc: David Blaikie; Jordan Rose; Nico Weber; Richard Smith; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] r164677 - > Oh, I was imagining the expected-no-diagnostics to be localized. So > that you could e.g. do > > int foo(); // expected-no-diagnostics > > int bar(cause_an_error<T>); // expected-error [...] > > That way, you could, in the same file, assert both for the existence > of diagnostics for certain code and that no diagnostics are emitted > for other code. > > For me the major downside of -Werror is that it is completely global, > so that it's not possible to see exactly what the test is expecting to > not emit diagnostics for. > > --Sean Silva > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Andy Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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
