On Friday 02 of May 2014, Nick Lewycky wrote: > On 1 May 2014 17:12, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1 May 2014 16:58, Lubos Lunak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Author: llunak > >> Date: Thu May 1 18:58:20 2014 > >> New Revision: 207814 > >> > >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=207814&view=rev > >> Log: > >> -fsyntax-only for a test ... > >> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -E -frewrite-includes %s -I%S/Inputs/ | %clang_cc1 > >> -Wall -fsyntax-only -Wunused-macros -x c - 2>&1 > %t.1 > >> -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -I%S/Inputs/ -Wall -Wunused-macros %s 2>&1 > %t.2 > >> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -I%S/Inputs/ -Wall -Wunused-macros -fsyntax-only %s > >> 2>&1 > %t.2 > > > > Huh? This test is running clang -cc1 which defaults to only syntax > > checking unless something else is specified. -fsyntax-only isn't a -cc1 > > flag, it's a clang flag. > > > > Please revert. > > Heh, I just saw the discussion on r207808. I understand what happened. > > %clang has its own set of flags and reads them, then fork+exec's %clang_cc1 > with a different set of flags. The suggestion of using -fsyntax-only and > updating to %clang_cc1 were mutually incompatible, just using %clang_cc1 > was the right thing here.
Well, there are about 2670 tests that use %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only (including the first call of this very test even before I added the flag to the second call), so apparently it is not mutually incompatible. So if it is not supposed to be there, you rather want the right grep+sed and I don't feel like doing that for 2670 tests, given that I had no idea about this. -- Lubos Lunak _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
