Ok, when I change syntax I will load new patch.
Thanks,
Elena.
-----Original Message-----
From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:38 PM
To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>
Cc: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements
It is necessary to be able to capture a match made with a pattern in a variable.
The syntax you suggested for doing this with your example has a
problem: it's ambiguous. Consider:
[[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]]
Is this saying that we should match a literal '%' character, followed by
a literal '[' character etc.? Or, is it a pattern application?
There's no way to disambiguate the two.
That is the role of the '@' character in my suggested grammar. It makes
the grammar unambiguous, and it makes it easy to notice pattern applications.
So:
[[REGISTER @register("1")]]
and
[[REGISTER: register]]]
Are two totally different things, and it should be obvious that they are
different.
vedant
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at
synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> I wanted to start making some change. But I thought and I don't
understand why it's necessary to add @.
>
> // RUN: FileCheck %s
> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK:
> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] //
CHECK:
> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]]
>
> This example will be equivalent to
>
> // RUN: FileCheck %s
> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK:
> %{{[a-z]+}}1 // CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2 // CHECK: %{{[a-z]+}}1 //
> CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2
>
> Now we have another syntax, but pattern work such way.
>
> If it's necessary to use pattern in variables, we can made
> [[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]].
>
> May be it is more useful to change extra brackets with @, but in
Mehdi's example everything will be okay id I understood well.
>
> Thanks,
> Elena.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:57 PM
> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
> Cc: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>;
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements
>
>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it
is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then
using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on
the first match.
>
>
> This is a problem with my suggested gramamr (specifically: it doesn't
provide a way to use defined patterns to capture text for later reference).
Fred brought up that he was confused by this too.
>
> One way to fix it is to use '@' before using patterns. I'll
recap the suggested grammar and work through another example. Here's how
you'd define a pattern:
>
> CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: car(make, model, year): {{Found a }} make model
> {{, from }} year
>
> And here's how you'd use it, *without* capturing the text into a
variable:
>
> CHECK: [[@car("Honda", "Accord", "2009")]]
>
> (Note, this matches the text: "Found a Honda Accord, from 2009".)
>
> To use a pattern and capture the matched text in "MY_CAR",
you'd write:
>
> CHECK: [[MY_CAR @car("Honda", "Accord",
"2009")]]
>
> This gives us an unambiguous way to capture text matched via a defined
pattern, which is visually distinct from how normal regex-based capturing works.
>
> Note that subsequent uses of "MY_CAR" should work as expected
(i.e, you can do '[[MY_CAR]]' later in the test).
>
> Revised grammar:
>
> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ;
> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST?
':' PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ;
> PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT (',' IDENT)* ')' ;
> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT | REGEX;
> MATCH <- (TEXT | REGEX | PATTERN_USE | VAR)* ;
> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ;
> PATTERN_USE <- '[[' '@' IDENT ']]' ;
> VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ;
> VAR <- '[[' IDENT '@' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ;
> ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (',' ARG)* ')' ;
> ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ;
>
> vedant
>
>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Elena Lepilkina
<Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Some discussions and comments were made in reviews. Much time
has already passed since last comment and uploading changed patches. I made
small summary report about features here, because there are some doubts about
syntax of some features and changes in patches and it'll be great to know
more opinions.
>>>>
>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD
>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353) I replace special directives
by flag --check-word, which turns on mode for each directive in file. It's
obvious that this mode can be replaced using \b assert, but current regexp
library doesn't have support of this assert and I have no answer to question
about possibility of change current library.
>>>> There was the discussion about that such mode can be made
default, but there were doubts about necessity of a lot of work for changing
existing tests.
>>>> And I made experiment which proves that a lot of old tests will
be failed with such mode on.
>>>> Expected Passes : 15810
>>>> Expected Failures : 125
>>>> Unsupported Tests : 195
>>>> Unexpected Passes : 4
>>>> Unexpected Failures: 1128
>>>
>>> I would rather not introduce churn in our tests by turning on
>>> --check-word by default. I'm also not convinced that turning on
>>> --check-word at the test level is the right move: having a
>>> CHECK-WORD directive is more flexible, and not a serious
inconvenience (as compared to writing "CHECK").
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. FileCheck Enhancement - pattern templates (
>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403) There are some doubts about
syntax of templates. I agree that use of \#, \:, \= is quite different from
usual characters in FileCheck and was chosen because of same approach for
escaping in regexp. Adrian Prantl suggested to use double-brackets
"[[" to escape.
>>>> Old syntax:
>>>> \#(template_name) - use of template 'template_name'. It
can occur
>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template
includes
>>>> other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't
know how
>>>> escape # here)
>>>> \:(Variable_name)- template variable with name
'variable_name'
>>>> \:(variable_name)\=(value) - current value of template
variable(it's needed when you use template with variables).
>>>> Suggested new syntax:
>>>> [[#template_name]] - use of template 'template_name'.
It can occur
>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template
includes other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't know how
escape # here) [[:Variable_name]] - template variable with name
'variable_name'
>>>> [[:variable_name=value]] - current value of template
variable(it's needed when you use template with variables).
>>>> It'll be great to hear more opinions and suggestions about
syntax. May be someone has really good ideas. Then I'll be able to change
it.
>>>
>>> First, I want to recap the FileCheck workflow Elena is proposing:
>>>
>>> 1. Define patterns using the CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN directive.
Defined patterns
>>> have a name and may optionally have parameters.
>>>
>>> 2. Use defined patterns in the usual CHECK* directives.
>>>
>>> This is similar to how FileCheck patterns work already. The
>>> difference is that the patterns are defined using a dedicated
>>> directive, *not* when the pattern is first encountered. E.g, here
is what you can do today:
>>>
>>> // RUN: echo "%r1 %r2" | FileCheck %s // CHECK:
>>> %[[register:[a-z]+]]1 // CHECK-SAME: %[[register]]2
>>>
>>> With the proposed changes, we'll be able to write something
like:
>>>
>>> // RUN: echo "%cmp %cmp" | FileCheck %s //
CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN:
>>> register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: %[[register("1")]]
//
>>> CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]]
>>
>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it
is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then
using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on
the first match.
>> So you cannot reuse “register()” later to capture another expression.
For instance:
>>
>> // RUN: FileCheck %s
>> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK:
>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME:
%[[register("2")]] // CHECK:
>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME:
%[[register("2")]]
>> %r1 %r2
>> %reg1 %reg2 #will fail here.
>>
>>
>> If true, I find this confusing, if not, I missed something in your
example.
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I saw "something like" because we haven't decided on
the syntax for
>>> defining and using patterns (that's what this thread is for).
>>> Briefly, here's the syntax I'd like to use:
>>>
>>> // Defining patterns.
>>> CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: <Name>(<Ident>, ...)?:
<Pattern>
>>>
>>> Where <Pattern> is a list of <PatternElement>, and a
>>> <PatternElement> is either a regex ('{{' POSIX_REGEX
'}}') or an argument identifier (IDENT).
>>>
>>> // Using patterns.
>>> CHECK: [[<Name>(<Argument>, ...)?]]
>>>
>>> Fleshing this out some more, here is my candidate grammar (see the
>>> end of this email for the current grammar):
>>>
>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ;
>>> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST?
':'
>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ; PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT
(',' IDENT)* ')' ;
>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT ; PATTERN_ELEMENT <- REGEX ; MATCH
<- ;
>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ; MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ; MATCH <-
VAR MATCH ;
>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; VAR <-
'[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX
>>> ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]'
; ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (','
>>> ARG)* ')' ; ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ;
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular expressions
>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454), FileCheck Enhancement -
Including files (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500), FileCheck Enhancement -
Expressions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501),
FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502),
FileCheck Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503) There were no comments about these
enhancements at all. Your opinions are very important.
>>>
>>> I personally am waiting for some version of D22403 to land in-tree
>>> before starting on the other reviews. This would help me gauge what
>>> others in the community are thinking and what they need.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hope that some of these changes will be useful for FileCheck
users, so I need your opinions to get opportunity for review to be resumed.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> vedant
>>>
>>> Original FileCheck grammar (shamelessly copied from the grammar
>>> Adrian posted to D22403):
>>>
>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ;
>>> MATCH <- ;
>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ;
>>> MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ;
>>> MATCH <- VAR MATCH ;
>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ;
>>> VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ;
VAR <- '[[' IDENT ']]' ;
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On
Behalf
>>>> Of Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:52 PM
>>>> To: vsk at apple.com
>>>> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements
>>>>
>>>> List of last patches:
>>>>
>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD (llvm-commits was added
later as diff update) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353 2. FileCheck Enhancement
- pattern templates(llvm-commits was added later as diff update) -
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular
expressions (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454 4.
FileCheck Enhancement - Including files (new review with llvm-commits) -
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500
>>>> 5. FileCheck Enhancement - Expressions repeat for CHECK and
CHECK-NEXT (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501
>>>> 6. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG (new review with
>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502 7. FileCheck
>>>> Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions (new review with
>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Elena.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 8:42 PM
>>>> To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>
>>>> Cc: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi
Amini
>>>> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements
>>>>
>>>> Hi Elena,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits
subscriber. But two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments
(patch for CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok?
>>>>
>>>> IMO it's fine to keep some of the original reviews if you
don't want to discard/recreate their state.
>>>>
>>>> Please list the most up-to-date set of Phab URL's here,
with a little note next to the ones which did not initially CC llvm-commits.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for working on this!
>>>>
>>>> vedant
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Elena.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org]
On Behalf
>>>>> Of Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM
>>>>> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>>>>> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?)
ago: the conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a
new revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e.
patch description)”
>>>>>> (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only
worth it if
>>>>>> there hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on
on the
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> revision)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have
already been asked before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe
the correct commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least
harder to forget.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
Thanks Elena!> Sergey wrote: >> I also like proposed grammar. One minor correction, I guess you want to allow pattern use with parameters as well: > > PATTERN_USE <- '[[' '@' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ;Thanks, that looks better! vedant> On Sep 4, 2016, at 11:07 PM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: > > Ok, when I change syntax I will load new patch. > > Thanks, > Elena. > > -----Original Message----- > From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:38 PM > To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> > Cc: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements > > It is necessary to be able to capture a match made with a pattern in a variable. The syntax you suggested for doing this with your example has a > problem: it's ambiguous. Consider: > > [[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]] > > Is this saying that we should match a literal '%' character, followed by a literal '[' character etc.? Or, is it a pattern application? There's no way to disambiguate the two. > > That is the role of the '@' character in my suggested grammar. It makes the grammar unambiguous, and it makes it easy to notice pattern applications. So: > > [[REGISTER @register("1")]] > > and > > [[REGISTER: register]]] > > Are two totally different things, and it should be obvious that they are different. > > vedant > >> On Sep 1, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: >> >> I wanted to start making some change. But I thought and I don't understand why it's necessary to add @. >> >> // RUN: FileCheck %s >> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] // CHECK: >> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >> >> This example will be equivalent to >> >> // RUN: FileCheck %s >> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >> %{{[a-z]+}}1 // CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2 // CHECK: %{{[a-z]+}}1 // >> CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2 >> >> Now we have another syntax, but pattern work such way. >> >> If it's necessary to use pattern in variables, we can made >> [[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]]. >> >> May be it is more useful to change extra brackets with @, but in Mehdi's example everything will be okay id I understood well. >> >> Thanks, >> Elena. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:57 PM >> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >> Cc: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>; >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >> >>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on the first match. >> >> >> This is a problem with my suggested gramamr (specifically: it doesn't provide a way to use defined patterns to capture text for later reference). Fred brought up that he was confused by this too. >> >> One way to fix it is to use '@' before using patterns. I'll recap the suggested grammar and work through another example. Here's how you'd define a pattern: >> >> CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: car(make, model, year): {{Found a }} make model >> {{, from }} year >> >> And here's how you'd use it, *without* capturing the text into a variable: >> >> CHECK: [[@car("Honda", "Accord", "2009")]] >> >> (Note, this matches the text: "Found a Honda Accord, from 2009".) >> >> To use a pattern and capture the matched text in "MY_CAR", you'd write: >> >> CHECK: [[MY_CAR @car("Honda", "Accord", "2009")]] >> >> This gives us an unambiguous way to capture text matched via a defined pattern, which is visually distinct from how normal regex-based capturing works. >> >> Note that subsequent uses of "MY_CAR" should work as expected (i.e, you can do '[[MY_CAR]]' later in the test). >> >> Revised grammar: >> >> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST? ':' PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ; >> PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT (',' IDENT)* ')' ; >> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT | REGEX; >> MATCH <- (TEXT | REGEX | PATTERN_USE | VAR)* ; >> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; >> PATTERN_USE <- '[[' '@' IDENT ']]' ; >> VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ; >> VAR <- '[[' IDENT '@' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ; >> ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (',' ARG)* ')' ; >> ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ; >> >> vedant >> >>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Some discussions and comments were made in reviews. Much time has already passed since last comment and uploading changed patches. I made small summary report about features here, because there are some doubts about syntax of some features and changes in patches and it'll be great to know more opinions. >>>>> >>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD >>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353) I replace special directives by flag --check-word, which turns on mode for each directive in file. It's obvious that this mode can be replaced using \b assert, but current regexp library doesn't have support of this assert and I have no answer to question about possibility of change current library. >>>>> There was the discussion about that such mode can be made default, but there were doubts about necessity of a lot of work for changing existing tests. >>>>> And I made experiment which proves that a lot of old tests will be failed with such mode on. >>>>> Expected Passes : 15810 >>>>> Expected Failures : 125 >>>>> Unsupported Tests : 195 >>>>> Unexpected Passes : 4 >>>>> Unexpected Failures: 1128 >>>> >>>> I would rather not introduce churn in our tests by turning on >>>> --check-word by default. I'm also not convinced that turning on >>>> --check-word at the test level is the right move: having a >>>> CHECK-WORD directive is more flexible, and not a serious inconvenience (as compared to writing "CHECK"). >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. FileCheck Enhancement - pattern templates ( >>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403) There are some doubts about syntax of templates. I agree that use of \#, \:, \= is quite different from usual characters in FileCheck and was chosen because of same approach for escaping in regexp. Adrian Prantl suggested to use double-brackets "[[" to escape. >>>>> Old syntax: >>>>> \#(template_name) - use of template 'template_name'. It can occur >>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template includes >>>>> other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't know how >>>>> escape # here) >>>>> \:(Variable_name)- template variable with name 'variable_name' >>>>> \:(variable_name)\=(value) - current value of template variable(it's needed when you use template with variables). >>>>> Suggested new syntax: >>>>> [[#template_name]] - use of template 'template_name'. It can occur >>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template includes other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't know how escape # here) [[:Variable_name]] - template variable with name 'variable_name' >>>>> [[:variable_name=value]] - current value of template variable(it's needed when you use template with variables). >>>>> It'll be great to hear more opinions and suggestions about syntax. May be someone has really good ideas. Then I'll be able to change it. >>>> >>>> First, I want to recap the FileCheck workflow Elena is proposing: >>>> >>>> 1. Define patterns using the CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN directive. Defined patterns >>>> have a name and may optionally have parameters. >>>> >>>> 2. Use defined patterns in the usual CHECK* directives. >>>> >>>> This is similar to how FileCheck patterns work already. The >>>> difference is that the patterns are defined using a dedicated >>>> directive, *not* when the pattern is first encountered. E.g, here is what you can do today: >>>> >>>> // RUN: echo "%r1 %r2" | FileCheck %s // CHECK: >>>> %[[register:[a-z]+]]1 // CHECK-SAME: %[[register]]2 >>>> >>>> With the proposed changes, we'll be able to write something like: >>>> >>>> // RUN: echo "%cmp %cmp" | FileCheck %s // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: >>>> register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: %[[register("1")]] // >>>> CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >>> >>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on the first match. >>> So you cannot reuse “register()” later to capture another expression. For instance: >>> >>> // RUN: FileCheck %s >>> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] // CHECK: >>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >>> %r1 %r2 >>> %reg1 %reg2 #will fail here. >>> >>> >>> If true, I find this confusing, if not, I missed something in your example. >>> >>> — >>> Mehdi >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I saw "something like" because we haven't decided on the syntax for >>>> defining and using patterns (that's what this thread is for). >>>> Briefly, here's the syntax I'd like to use: >>>> >>>> // Defining patterns. >>>> CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: <Name>(<Ident>, ...)?: <Pattern> >>>> >>>> Where <Pattern> is a list of <PatternElement>, and a >>>> <PatternElement> is either a regex ('{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}') or an argument identifier (IDENT). >>>> >>>> // Using patterns. >>>> CHECK: [[<Name>(<Argument>, ...)?]] >>>> >>>> Fleshing this out some more, here is my candidate grammar (see the >>>> end of this email for the current grammar): >>>> >>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >>>> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST? ':' >>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ; PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT (',' IDENT)* ')' ; >>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT ; PATTERN_ELEMENT <- REGEX ; MATCH <- ; >>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ; MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ; MATCH <- VAR MATCH ; >>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX >>>> ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ; ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (',' >>>> ARG)* ')' ; ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ; >>>> >>>> >>>>> 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular expressions >>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454), FileCheck Enhancement - Including files (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500), FileCheck Enhancement - Expressions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501), FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502), FileCheck Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503) There were no comments about these enhancements at all. Your opinions are very important. >>>> >>>> I personally am waiting for some version of D22403 to land in-tree >>>> before starting on the other reviews. This would help me gauge what >>>> others in the community are thinking and what they need. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope that some of these changes will be useful for FileCheck users, so I need your opinions to get opportunity for review to be resumed. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> vedant >>>> >>>> Original FileCheck grammar (shamelessly copied from the grammar >>>> Adrian posted to D22403): >>>> >>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >>>> MATCH <- ; >>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ; >>>> MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ; >>>> MATCH <- VAR MATCH ; >>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; >>>> VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ']]' ; >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:52 PM >>>>> To: vsk at apple.com >>>>> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>> >>>>> List of last patches: >>>>> >>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD (llvm-commits was added later as diff update) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353 2. FileCheck Enhancement - pattern templates(llvm-commits was added later as diff update) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular expressions (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454 4. FileCheck Enhancement - Including files (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500 >>>>> 5. FileCheck Enhancement - Expressions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501 >>>>> 6. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG (new review with >>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502 7. FileCheck >>>>> Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions (new review with >>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Elena. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 8:42 PM >>>>> To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> >>>>> Cc: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi Amini >>>>> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>> >>>>> Hi Elena, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits subscriber. But two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments (patch for CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok? >>>>> >>>>> IMO it's fine to keep some of the original reviews if you don't want to discard/recreate their state. >>>>> >>>>> Please list the most up-to-date set of Phab URL's here, with a little note next to the ones which did not initially CC llvm-commits. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again for working on this! >>>>> >>>>> vedant >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Elena. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf >>>>>> Of Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM >>>>>> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >>>>>> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?) ago: the conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a new revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e. patch description)” >>>>>>> (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only worth it if >>>>>>> there hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on on the >>>>>>> existing >>>>>>> revision) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have already been asked before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe the correct commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least harder to forget. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >
New patch for patterns with new syntax was uploaded to Phabricator. Thanks, Elena. -----Original Message----- From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 4:42 PM To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>; Sergey Yakoushkin <sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com> Cc: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements Thanks Elena!> Sergey wrote: >> I also like proposed grammar. One minor correction, I guess you want to allow pattern use with parameters as well: > > PATTERN_USE <- '[[' '@' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ;Thanks, that looks better! vedant> On Sep 4, 2016, at 11:07 PM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: > > Ok, when I change syntax I will load new patch. > > Thanks, > Elena. > > -----Original Message----- > From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:38 PM > To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> > Cc: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements > > It is necessary to be able to capture a match made with a pattern in a > variable. The syntax you suggested for doing this with your example > has a > problem: it's ambiguous. Consider: > > [[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]] > > Is this saying that we should match a literal '%' character, followed by a literal '[' character etc.? Or, is it a pattern application? There's no way to disambiguate the two. > > That is the role of the '@' character in my suggested grammar. It makes the grammar unambiguous, and it makes it easy to notice pattern applications. So: > > [[REGISTER @register("1")]] > > and > > [[REGISTER: register]]] > > Are two totally different things, and it should be obvious that they are different. > > vedant > >> On Sep 1, 2016, at 2:05 AM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: >> >> I wanted to start making some change. But I thought and I don't understand why it's necessary to add @. >> >> // RUN: FileCheck %s >> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] // CHECK: >> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >> >> This example will be equivalent to >> >> // RUN: FileCheck %s >> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >> %{{[a-z]+}}1 // CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2 // CHECK: %{{[a-z]+}}1 // >> CHECK-SAME: %{{[a-z]+}}2 >> >> Now we have another syntax, but pattern work such way. >> >> If it's necessary to use pattern in variables, we can made >> [[REGISTER:%[[register(1)]]]]. >> >> May be it is more useful to change extra brackets with @, but in Mehdi's example everything will be okay id I understood well. >> >> Thanks, >> Elena. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:57 PM >> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >> Cc: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com>; >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >> >>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on the first match. >> >> >> This is a problem with my suggested gramamr (specifically: it doesn't provide a way to use defined patterns to capture text for later reference). Fred brought up that he was confused by this too. >> >> One way to fix it is to use '@' before using patterns. I'll recap the suggested grammar and work through another example. Here's how you'd define a pattern: >> >> CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: car(make, model, year): {{Found a }} make model >> {{, from }} year >> >> And here's how you'd use it, *without* capturing the text into a variable: >> >> CHECK: [[@car("Honda", "Accord", "2009")]] >> >> (Note, this matches the text: "Found a Honda Accord, from 2009".) >> >> To use a pattern and capture the matched text in "MY_CAR", you'd write: >> >> CHECK: [[MY_CAR @car("Honda", "Accord", "2009")]] >> >> This gives us an unambiguous way to capture text matched via a defined pattern, which is visually distinct from how normal regex-based capturing works. >> >> Note that subsequent uses of "MY_CAR" should work as expected (i.e, you can do '[[MY_CAR]]' later in the test). >> >> Revised grammar: >> >> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST? ':' >> PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ; PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT (',' IDENT)* ')' ; >> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT | REGEX; MATCH <- (TEXT | REGEX | >> PATTERN_USE | VAR)* ; REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; PATTERN_USE >> <- '[[' '@' IDENT ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ; >> VAR <- '[[' IDENT '@' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ; ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (',' >> ARG)* ')' ; ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ; >> >> vedant >> >>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Some discussions and comments were made in reviews. Much time has already passed since last comment and uploading changed patches. I made small summary report about features here, because there are some doubts about syntax of some features and changes in patches and it'll be great to know more opinions. >>>>> >>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD >>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353) I replace special directives by flag --check-word, which turns on mode for each directive in file. It's obvious that this mode can be replaced using \b assert, but current regexp library doesn't have support of this assert and I have no answer to question about possibility of change current library. >>>>> There was the discussion about that such mode can be made default, but there were doubts about necessity of a lot of work for changing existing tests. >>>>> And I made experiment which proves that a lot of old tests will be failed with such mode on. >>>>> Expected Passes : 15810 >>>>> Expected Failures : 125 >>>>> Unsupported Tests : 195 >>>>> Unexpected Passes : 4 >>>>> Unexpected Failures: 1128 >>>> >>>> I would rather not introduce churn in our tests by turning on >>>> --check-word by default. I'm also not convinced that turning on >>>> --check-word at the test level is the right move: having a >>>> CHECK-WORD directive is more flexible, and not a serious inconvenience (as compared to writing "CHECK"). >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. FileCheck Enhancement - pattern templates ( >>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403) There are some doubts about syntax of templates. I agree that use of \#, \:, \= is quite different from usual characters in FileCheck and was chosen because of same approach for escaping in regexp. Adrian Prantl suggested to use double-brackets "[[" to escape. >>>>> Old syntax: >>>>> \#(template_name) - use of template 'template_name'. It can occur >>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template includes >>>>> other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't know how >>>>> escape # here) >>>>> \:(Variable_name)- template variable with name 'variable_name' >>>>> \:(variable_name)\=(value) - current value of template variable(it's needed when you use template with variables). >>>>> Suggested new syntax: >>>>> [[#template_name]] - use of template 'template_name'. It can occur >>>>> in CHECK-PATTERN line, when description of one template includes other templates described before. (Without quote, I don't know how escape # here) [[:Variable_name]] - template variable with name 'variable_name' >>>>> [[:variable_name=value]] - current value of template variable(it's needed when you use template with variables). >>>>> It'll be great to hear more opinions and suggestions about syntax. May be someone has really good ideas. Then I'll be able to change it. >>>> >>>> First, I want to recap the FileCheck workflow Elena is proposing: >>>> >>>> 1. Define patterns using the CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN directive. Defined patterns >>>> have a name and may optionally have parameters. >>>> >>>> 2. Use defined patterns in the usual CHECK* directives. >>>> >>>> This is similar to how FileCheck patterns work already. The >>>> difference is that the patterns are defined using a dedicated >>>> directive, *not* when the pattern is first encountered. E.g, here is what you can do today: >>>> >>>> // RUN: echo "%r1 %r2" | FileCheck %s // CHECK: >>>> %[[register:[a-z]+]]1 // CHECK-SAME: %[[register]]2 >>>> >>>> With the proposed changes, we'll be able to write something like: >>>> >>>> // RUN: echo "%cmp %cmp" | FileCheck %s // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: >>>> register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: %[[register("1")]] // >>>> CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >>> >>> At first I thought that `register(n)` was some sort of macro, but if it is suppose to be equivalent to the example above of what we do “today”, then using “register(“1”)” is supposed to “capture” the ‘r’ part of the register on the first match. >>> So you cannot reuse “register()” later to capture another expression. For instance: >>> >>> // RUN: FileCheck %s >>> // CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: register(n): {{[a-z]+}}n // CHECK: >>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] // CHECK: >>> %[[register("1")]] // CHECK-SAME: %[[register("2")]] >>> %r1 %r2 >>> %reg1 %reg2 #will fail here. >>> >>> >>> If true, I find this confusing, if not, I missed something in your example. >>> >>> — >>> Mehdi >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I saw "something like" because we haven't decided on the syntax for >>>> defining and using patterns (that's what this thread is for). >>>> Briefly, here's the syntax I'd like to use: >>>> >>>> // Defining patterns. >>>> CHECK-DEFINE-PATERN: <Name>(<Ident>, ...)?: <Pattern> >>>> >>>> Where <Pattern> is a list of <PatternElement>, and a >>>> <PatternElement> is either a regex ('{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}') or an argument identifier (IDENT). >>>> >>>> // Using patterns. >>>> CHECK: [[<Name>(<Argument>, ...)?]] >>>> >>>> Fleshing this out some more, here is my candidate grammar (see the >>>> end of this email for the current grammar): >>>> >>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >>>> ACTION <- CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN ':' IDENT PARAMLIST? ':' >>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT* '\n' ; PARAMLIST <- '(' IDENT (',' IDENT)* ')' ; >>>> PATTERN_ELEMENT <- IDENT ; PATTERN_ELEMENT <- REGEX ; MATCH <- ; >>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ; MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ; MATCH <- VAR MATCH ; >>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX >>>> ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ARGLIST? ']]' ; ARGLIST <- '(' ARG (',' >>>> ARG)* ')' ; ARG <- "([^"]|\\")*" ; >>>> >>>> >>>>> 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular expressions >>>>> (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454), FileCheck Enhancement - Including files (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500), FileCheck Enhancement - Expressions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501), FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG(https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502), FileCheck Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503) There were no comments about these enhancements at all. Your opinions are very important. >>>> >>>> I personally am waiting for some version of D22403 to land in-tree >>>> before starting on the other reviews. This would help me gauge what >>>> others in the community are thinking and what they need. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope that some of these changes will be useful for FileCheck users, so I need your opinions to get opportunity for review to be resumed. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> vedant >>>> >>>> Original FileCheck grammar (shamelessly copied from the grammar >>>> Adrian posted to D22403): >>>> >>>> ACTION <- CHECK ':' MATCH '\n' ; >>>> MATCH <- ; >>>> MATCH <- TEXT MATCH ; >>>> MATCH <- REGEX MATCH ; >>>> MATCH <- VAR MATCH ; >>>> REGEX <- '{{' POSIX_REGEX '}}' ; >>>> VAR <- '[[' IDENT ':' POSIX_REGEX ']]' ; VAR <- '[[' IDENT ']]' ; >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf >>>>> Of Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:52 PM >>>>> To: vsk at apple.com >>>>> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>> >>>>> List of last patches: >>>>> >>>>> 1. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-WORD (llvm-commits was added later as diff update) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353 2. FileCheck Enhancement - pattern templates(llvm-commits was added later as diff update) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403 3. FileCheck Enhancement - repeats in regular expressions (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22454 4. FileCheck Enhancement - Including files (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22500 >>>>> 5. FileCheck Enhancement - Expressions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT (new review with llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22501 >>>>> 6. FileCheck Enhancement - CHECK-LABEL-DAG (new review with >>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22502 7. FileCheck >>>>> Enhancement - prefixes-regular expressions (new review with >>>>> llvm-commits) - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22503 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Elena. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: vsk at apple.com [mailto:vsk at apple.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 8:42 PM >>>>> To: Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at synopsys.com> >>>>> Cc: Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>; Mehdi Amini >>>>> <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>> >>>>> Hi Elena, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I made new patches for most of changes with llvm-commits subscriber. But two patches were updated, because there are a lot of comments (patch for CHECK-WORD and patch for templates pattern). Will it be ok? >>>>> >>>>> IMO it's fine to keep some of the original reviews if you don't want to discard/recreate their state. >>>>> >>>>> Please list the most up-to-date set of Phab URL's here, with a little note next to the ones which did not initially CC llvm-commits. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again for working on this! >>>>> >>>>> vedant >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Elena. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf >>>>>> Of Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:53 AM >>>>>> To: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >>>>>> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: FileCheck Enhancements >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 04:18, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We had a long thread about that a few weeks (months?) ago: the conclusion (as I remember) was roughly a guideline to “always start a new revision to have a proper mailing-list thread starting with context (i.e. patch description)” >>>>>>> (and my dissident minority opinion that it is only worth it if >>>>>>> there hasn’t been significant round of reviews going on on the >>>>>>> existing >>>>>>> revision) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pardon me for missing that discussion, this may have already been asked before: but is it possible to make arcanist default subscribe the correct commits mailing list in the process? This should make it at least harder to forget. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >