> On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Elena Lepilkina <Elena.Lepilkina at
synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I now understand what you suggested.
>
>> CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: car(make, model, year): {{Found a }} make model
{{, from }} year
>
> But I think that in pattern I should show that I use parameter. I thought
that patterns can also be simple strings. All strings should be regexs in
pattern and parameters can't be used in pattern in your example. But I want
to use parameters in regexs. For example, {{Found a \#make{2,4}}}. I need to
know if this parameter name or simple text. So I asked you before about syntax
of parameters usage during describing patterns.
With the syntax I'm suggesting, there is a clear distinction between
parameters
and regexes inside of pattern definitions. This is really valuable to me (and
probably others): it means that I don't have to learn an alternate,
FileCheck-specific flavor of regexes. That could also make it easier to switch
to a different regex engine in the future.
The tradeoff here is that 'simple strings' inside of pattern definitions
need
to be wrapped in '{{' '}}', i.e they are actually just regexes.
We'd also need
logic to escape metacharacters in pattern arguments. IMO, this is a fair
tradeoff. Note that you can still apply regexes to parameters, like this:
CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: one_or_more(x): x {{+}}
Wdyt?
vedant
> 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
>