On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Bill Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 10:19 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Bill Schmidt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: wschmidt >> Date: Wed Jul 3 10:36:02 2013 >> New Revision: 185544 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=185544&view=rev >> Log: >> Fix PR16454: Don't #include altivec.h when preprocessing >> assembly. >> >> When the -maltivec flag is present, altivec.h is auto-included >> for the >> compilation. This is not appropriate when the job action is >> to >> preprocess a file containing assembly code. So don't do that. >> >> I was unable to convert the test in the bug report into a >> regression >> test. The original symptom was exposed with: >> >> % touch x.S >> % ./bin/clang -target powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu -maltivec >> -S -o - x.S >> >> I tried this test (and numerous variants) on a PPC64 system: >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> // RUN: touch %t >> // RUN: %clang -maltivec -S %t -o - | FileCheck %s >> >> // Verify that assembling an empty file does not auto-include >> altivec.h. >> >> // CHECK-NOT: static vector >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> However, this test passes for some reason even on a clang >> built >> without the fix. I'd be happy to add a test case but at this >> point >> I'm not able to figure one out, and I don't want to hold up >> the patch >> unnecessarily. Please let me know if you have ideas. >> >> >> Umm, why are you committing a patch for an issue you can't reproduce? > > Sorry if I was unclear. I can reproduce the issue by hand. I can't > find a way to automate the process successfully using FileCheck. I > don't know why it doesn't work as a test case when it works from the > command line. No doubt there is some small thing about the automatic > testing process that I don't understand. > > I had posted this potential solution a couple of days ago in the bug, > and asked for assistance with the test case. After no response, I > decided to go ahead with the patch and add a test case later if I can > get some help in understanding why it doesn't work.
So... comments in bugs don't get attention from people who aren't CC'd; even people subscribed to the llvmbugs@ list only see when bugs are created and closed, not comments added to them. In future, please send patches for which you want review or comments to cfe-commits@ (even if they're incomplete); you're vastly more likely to get a response there. Also, as a general rule, please don't interpret a lack of response as a signal to go ahead, the expectation within the community is that you will ping a patch if you don't get an answer to your initial mail (around once a week is typical). _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
