mirror of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
synced 2025-04-27 14:06:07 +00:00
d91e5c3013
Multiple improvements to make the messages more concrete, actionable and less confusing when multiple prefixes are used in `-verify=`. The common theme among these was that prior to the patch all error messages would use the alphabetically first prefix, even if the error was associated with a different one. - Mention the actual expected but unseen directive: Prior to this change when reporting expected but unseen directive, the alphabetically first one would be used to report the error even if that's not the one present in the source. Reword the diagnostic if multiple prefixes are active and include the real spelling of the expected directive for each expected but not seen line in the output. - Reword the seen but not expected error message if multiple directives are active to avoid having to pick an arbitrary (the first) prefix for it. - Include the full spelling of the directive when reporting a directive following the no-diagnostics directive. For example "'foo-error' directive cannot follow 'foo-no-diagnostics' directive" - Use the first appearing `-no-diagnostics` directive, in the above message instead of the first one alphabetically. The new wording > diagnostics with '(error|warning|remark|note)' severity seen but not expected instead of > '<prefix>-(error|warning|remark|note)' diagnostics seen but not expected is only used when multiple prefixes are present, the error messages stay the same with a single prefix only.
42 lines
1.5 KiB
C
42 lines
1.5 KiB
C
// This test-case runs several sub-tests on -verify to ensure that correct
|
|
// diagnostics are generated in relation to the mis-use and non-use of the
|
|
// 'expected-no-diagnostics' directive.
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -DTEST1 -verify %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK1 %s
|
|
#ifdef TEST1
|
|
// expected-no-diagnostics
|
|
// expected-note {{}}
|
|
|
|
// CHECK1: error: 'expected-error' diagnostics seen but not expected:
|
|
// CHECK1-NEXT: Line 8: 'expected-note' directive cannot follow 'expected-no-diagnostics' directive
|
|
// CHECK1-NEXT: 1 error generated.
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -DTEST2 -verify %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK2 %s
|
|
#ifdef TEST2
|
|
#warning X
|
|
// expected-warning@-1 {{X}}
|
|
// expected-no-diagnostics
|
|
|
|
// CHECK2: error: 'expected-error' diagnostics seen but not expected:
|
|
// CHECK2-NEXT: Line 19: 'expected-no-diagnostics' directive cannot follow other expected directives
|
|
// CHECK2-NEXT: 1 error generated.
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -DTEST3 -verify %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK3 %s
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -verify %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK3 %s
|
|
#ifdef TEST3
|
|
// no directives
|
|
|
|
// CHECK3: error: no expected directives found: consider use of 'expected-no-diagnostics'
|
|
// CHECK3-NEXT: 1 error generated.
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -E -DTEST4 -verify %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK4 %s
|
|
#ifdef TEST4
|
|
#warning X
|
|
// expected-warning@-1 {{X}}
|
|
|
|
// CHECK4-NOT: error: no expected directives found: consider use of 'expected-no-diagnostics'
|
|
#endif
|