search for: auto_inserted

...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 - thank...

...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'd...

...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 Mircea...

..., 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? > >&...

...> >> > >> 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. > >> >> >...

...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 explanatory...

...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.com...

...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, b...

...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 Fri...

...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. >> >> > >> >> > W...

...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. >> >> &g...

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