With these fixed, LGTM. (But I am not a FileCheck expert.) I start to worry that FileCheck becomes a relatively complex tool, but has no tests (especially error cases). But this requires some consideration...
================ Comment at: docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst:295 @@ +294,3 @@ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + + ---------------- Are two empty lines required? ================ Comment at: docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst:303 @@ +302,3 @@ + +To support this case, FileCheck allows using **[[@LINE]]**, +**[[@LINE+<offset>]]**, **[[@LINE-<offset>]]** expressions in patterns. These ---------------- Maybe use double backticks to mark code? Like ```this```. ================ Comment at: utils/FileCheck/FileCheck.cpp:112 @@ +111,3 @@ + + /// \brief Evaluates expression and stores the result to Value. + /// \return true on success. false when the expression has invalid syntax. ---------------- ... to \p Value. ================ Comment at: utils/FileCheck/FileCheck.cpp:208 @@ +207,3 @@ + // supports @LINE, @LINE+number, @LINE-number expressions. The check here + // is relaxed, more strickt check is performed in EvaluateExpression. + bool IsExpression = false; ---------------- sp: strict ... in \c EvaluateExpression. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D109 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
