Displaying 12 results from an estimated 12 matches for "auto_insert".
Did you mean:
autoinsert
2020 Nov 09
5
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...s, for instance) have
output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example,
they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that.
If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes
directives, how about:
- we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
- we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without
requiring more significant test by test surgery.
WDYT?
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:13 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote:
> Oh! Perfect - tha...
2020 Nov 09
2
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...use that sort of thing.
>
Tens. I'd be happy to mark them in the spreadsheet, if anyone wants to fix
them that way.
>
> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted
> -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
> >
> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without
> requiring more significant test by test surgery.
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> Not hugely in favor, but plausible - I'...
2020 Nov 10
3
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...g on the line position of the input. For example,
>> they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that.
>>
>> If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted
>> -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
>> - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
>> - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>>
>> This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without
>> requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:13 AM Mirce...
2020 Nov 09
2
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
..., if anyone wants to
> fix them that way.
>
> Yeah, sound worth some annotation on the spreadsheet.
>
> >> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted
> -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
> >> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
> >> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
> >> >
> >> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script
> without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >...
2020 Nov 09
2
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...> >>
> >> Yeah, sound worth some annotation on the spreadsheet.
> >>
> >> >> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted
> -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
> >> >> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
> >> >> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script
> without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
> >> >> &g...
2020 Nov 09
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...which can help make tests like this
more flexible - if it's only a few I'd be in favor of improving the
tests to use that sort of thing.
> If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
> - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
> - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>
> This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>
> WDYT?
Not hugely in favor, but plausible - I'd probably use a long/fairly
explanator...
2020 Nov 10
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...tput checks depending on the line position of the input. For example,
> they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that.
>
> If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes
> directives, how about:
> - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
> - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>
> This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without
> requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>
> WDYT?
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:13 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.c...
2020 Nov 09
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...y to mark them in the spreadsheet, if anyone wants to fix them that way.
Yeah, sound worth some annotation on the spreadsheet.
>> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
>> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
>> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>> >
>> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>> >
>> > WDYT?
>>
>> Not hugely in favor,...
2020 Nov 10
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...on of the input. For example,
>>> they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that.
>>>
>>> If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted
>>> -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
>>> - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
>>> - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>>>
>>> This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without
>>> requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> On F...
2020 Nov 09
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...e wants to fix them that way.
>>
>> Yeah, sound worth some annotation on the spreadsheet.
>>
>> >> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
>> >> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
>> >> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>> >> >
>> >> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>> >> >
>> >> >...
2020 Nov 10
0
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
...t;
>> >> Yeah, sound worth some annotation on the spreadsheet.
>> >>
>> >> >> > If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about:
>> >> >> > - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted
>> >> >> > - we use -allow-unused-prefixes=auto_inserted for the scripts
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This allows easy identification, and should be easier to script without requiring more significant test by test surgery.
>> >>...
2020 Nov 06
2
[RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes
I recently discovered that multi-line RUN statements can actually be
interrupted with non-RUN lines, without changing the behaviour. In other
words, you can do something like:
# RUN: some command --option1 \
## Comment
# CHECK: check something
# RUN: --option2
And you'd end up with "some command --option1 --option2" being run. It's
rather surprising behaviour, and not one