Summary:
This patch is part of a patch series to add support for FileCheck
numeric expressions. This specific patch adds support for selecting a
matching format to match a numeric value against (ie. decimal, hex lower
case letters or hex upper case letters).
This commit allows to select what format a numeric value should be
matched against. The following formats are supported: decimal value,
lower case hex value and upper case hex value. Matching formats impact
both the format of numeric value to be matched as well as the format of
accepted numbers in a definition with empty numeric expression
constraint.
Default for absence of format is decimal value unless the numeric
expression constraint is non null and use a variable in which case the
format is the one used to define that variable. Conclict of format in
case of several variable being used is diagnosed and forces the user to
select a matching format explicitely.
This commit also enables immediates in numeric expressions to be in any
radix known to StringRef's GetAsInteger method, except for legacy
numeric expressions (ie [[@LINE+<offset>]] which only support decimal
immediates.
Copyright:
- Linaro (changes up to diff 183612 of revision D55940)
- GraphCore (changes in later versions of revision D55940 and
in new revision created off D55940)
Reviewers: jhenderson, chandlerc, jdenny, probinson, grimar, arichardson
Reviewed By: jhenderson, arichardson
Subscribers: daltenty, MaskRay, hiraditya, llvm-commits, probinson, dblaikie, grimar, arichardson, kristina, hfinkel, rogfer01, JonChesterfield
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60389
Without this patch, `FILECHECK_OPTS` isn't propagated to FileCheck's
test suite so that `FILECHECK_OPTS` doesn't inadvertently affect test
results by affecting the output of FileCheck calls under test. As a
result, `FILECHECK_OPTS` is useless for debugging FileCheck's test
suite.
In `llvm/test/FileCheck/lit.local.cfg`, this patch provides a new
subsitution, `%ProtectFileCheckOutput`, to address this problem for
both `FILECHECK_OPTS` and the deprecated
`FILECHECK_DUMP_INPUT_ON_FAILURE`. The rest of the patch uses
`%ProtectFileCheckOutput` throughout the test suite
Fixes PR40284.
Reviewed By: probinson, thopre
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65121
Summary:
Testing of caret location in diagnostic message is currently made with
CHECK directive with the following general format:
CHECK: {{^ \^$}}
James Henderson suggested the following would be more readable:
CHECK: {{^}} ^{{$}}
and when whole lines can be matched (as is the case for command-line
testing where error messages do not include path):
CHECK: ^
using the option --match-full-lines.
This commit implements these 2 changes on all existing caret position
tests. It also aligns the caret to the character it is trying to match
in the above line.
Reviewers: jhenderson, chandlerc, jdenny, probinson, grimar, arichardson, rnk
Subscribers: JonChesterfield, rogfer01, hfinkel, kristina, rnk, tra, arichardson, grimar, dblaikie, probinson, llvm-commits, hiraditya
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64923
> llvm-svn: 366861
llvm-svn: 366898
Summary:
Testing of caret location in diagnostic message is currently made with
CHECK directive with the following general format:
CHECK: {{^ \^$}}
James Henderson suggested the following would be more readable:
CHECK: {{^}} ^{{$}}
and when whole lines can be matched (as is the case for command-line
testing where error messages do not include path):
CHECK: ^
using the option --match-full-lines.
This commit implements these 2 changes on all existing caret position
tests. It also aligns the caret to the character it is trying to match
in the above line.
Reviewers: jhenderson, chandlerc, jdenny, probinson, grimar, arichardson, rnk
Subscribers: JonChesterfield, rogfer01, hfinkel, kristina, rnk, tra, arichardson, grimar, dblaikie, probinson, llvm-commits, hiraditya
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64923
llvm-svn: 366861
Summary:
Make use of Error and Expected to bubble up diagnostics and force
checking of errors in the callers.
Reviewers: jhenderson, jdenny, probinson, arichardson
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63125
llvm-svn: 363900
Summary:
Terminology introduced by [[#]] blocks is confusing and does not
integrate well with existing terminology.
First, variables referred by [[]] blocks are called "pattern variables"
while the text a CHECK directive needs to match is called a "CHECK
pattern". This is inconsistent with variables in [[#]] blocks since
[[#]] blocks are also found in CHECK pattern yet those variables are
called "numeric variable".
Second, the replacing of both [[]] and [[#]] blocks by the value of the
variable or expression they contain is represented by a
FileCheckPatternSubstitution class. The naming refers to being a
substitution in a CHECK pattern but could be wrongly understood as being
a substitution of a pattern variable.
Third and lastly, comments use "numeric expression" to refer both to the
[[#]] blocks as well as to the numeric expressions these blocks contain
which get evaluated at match time.
This patch solves these confusions by
- calling variables in [[]] and [[#]] blocks as string and numeric
variables respectively;
- referring to [[]] and [[#]] as substitution *blocks*, with the former
being a string substitution block and the latter a numeric
substitution block;
- calling [[]] and [[#]] blocks to be replaced by the value of a
variable or expression they contain a substitution (as opposed to
definition when these blocks are used to defined a variable), with the
former being a string substitution and the latter a numeric
substitution;
- renaming the FileCheckPatternSubstitution as a FileCheckSubstitution
class with FileCheckStringSubstitution and
FileCheckNumericSubstitution subclasses;
- restricting the use of "numeric expression" to refer to the expression
that is evaluated in a numeric substitution.
While numeric substitution blocks only support numeric substitutions of
numeric expressions at the moment there are plans to augment numeric
substitution blocks to support numeric definitions as well as both a
numeric definition and numeric substitution in the same numeric
substitution block.
Reviewers: jhenderson, jdenny, probinson, arichardson
Subscribers: hiraditya, arichardson, probinson, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62146
llvm-svn: 361445
Thomas Preud'homme