[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij added a comment. > If this cannot be reproduced with the OSS LLVM, I am not sure you should > adjust such a test. Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the comment. Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN -//

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

MaskRay added a comment. In D88566#2317248 , @stuij wrote: > Hi @MaskRay. Yes, so we're seeing a warning specific to our Armcompiler > toolchain, so I'm guessing that isn't relevant to OSS LLVM: > `armclang: warning: '--target=x86_64-unknown-linux' is

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij abandoned this revision. stuij added a comment. Abandoned because lack of reaction for such an unimportant issue. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij added a comment. ping Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN -// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: +// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: 'fuse-ld' MaskRay wrote: > How does this line trigger unrelated

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij added a comment. Hi @MaskRay. Yes, so we're seeing a warning specific to our Armcompiler toolchain, so I'm guessing that isn't relevant to OSS LLVM: `armclang: warning: '--target=x86_64-unknown-linux' is not supported.` As David Green pointed out, we have a perfectly fine workaround. But

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

MaskRay added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:15 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-WARN -// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: +// CHECK-NO-WARN-NOT: warning: 'fuse-ld' How does this line trigger unrelated warnings? Can you dump

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

dmgreen added a comment. (Not that I'm against this, either way sounds fine to me) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

dmgreen added a comment. In the past we have usually disabled the downstream warning for similar catch-all warning lines. Comment at: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c:5 // RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-ABSOLUTE-LD // CHECK-ABSOLUTE-LD: warning: '-fuse-ld=' taking a

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij updated this revision to Diff 295262. stuij added a comment. slight change in commit message Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88566 Files: clang/test/Driver/fuse-ld.c Index:

[PATCH] D88566: be more specific when testing for no fuse-ld warnings

stuij created this revision. Herald added a project: clang. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. stuij requested review of this revision. This test broke for our toolchain as this test triggered unrelated warnings. Being more specific about not expecting fuse-ld warnings won't invalidate the