On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 10:50 -0700, Richard Smith wrote: > 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).
Sorry if this wasn't quite kosher. My intent was to request broader help with the test case with this patch note. I didn't want to hold up the original filer of the bug over this as I will be out of town for a number of days after today. But yes, I understand the process and will be more strict about it in future. Do you have a preference for the location of this test case (test/Driver, test/CodeGen, etc.)? Thanks, Bill > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
