arichardson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Modules/implicit-modules-use-lock.m:21
+
+// CHECK-NO-LOCKS-NOT: remark:
+// CHECK-LOCKS: remark: locking '{{.*}}.pcm' to build module 'X'
[-Rmodule-lock]
----------------
jansvoboda11 wrote:
> dexonsmith wrote:
> > jansvoboda11 wrote:
> > > Where is the empty remark coming from? Is it useful to us in any way?
> > This is a `CHECK-NOT: <match>` line (with a custom `-check-prefix`). It
> > confirms that `<match>` does not occur at least until the next positive
> > check matches. The `FileCheck` invocation that uses `CHECK-NO-LOCKS` has no
> > other check lines, so this really means: "`remark:` does not match on any
> > line". Note I also needed to add `-allow-empty` since with no diagnostics
> > at all, `FileCheck`'s stdin will be empty.
> >
> > FYI, if you want to read more:
> > - `-check-prefix` is documented at
> > https://www.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-filecheck-check-prefix-option
> > - `CHECK-NOT` is documented at
> > https://www.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#the-check-not-directive
> >
> > Often in clang tests it's easier to use `-cc1 -verify` for diagnostics
> > instead of manual `FileCheck`s (`expected-no-diagnostics` comment being the
> > equivalent of `-allow-empty`). In the modules testcases, there's often a
> > complicated setup that we want to run a lot of `RUN:` lines against where
> > each one expects different diagnostics. Maybe we should add prefix support
> > to `-verify` (or maybe it's there and no one told me...).
> Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
This could use e.g. `-verify=lock` and `-verify=lock` to avoid the Filecheck
usage.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95583/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95583
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
