search for: d22403

...sions repeat for CHECK and CHECK-NEXT - > https://reviews.llvm.org/D22345 > CHECK-LABEL-DAG - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22348 > CHECK-WORD - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353 > prefixes-regular expressions - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22401 > pattern templates - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403. > > Thanks, > Elena. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

...t 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 <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 &qu...

...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 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_n...

...>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D22345 > >> CHECK-LABEL-DAG - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22348 > >> CHECK-WORD - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22353 > >> prefixes-regular expressions - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22401 > >> pattern templates - https://reviews.llvm.org/D22403. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Elena. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________...

...he 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: &...

...he 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: &...

...ght 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 synta...

Hi, I have question again about modifiers for pattern parameters. Vedant suggested such way. > CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: one_or_more(x): x {{+}} But I have some doubts. This should be equal to x+. This approach differs from standard one. In FileCheck I can write CHECK: {{x|y}}{{something}} This line will be equal to regex (x|y)(something). But if I use suggested approach and write same

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

Hi all, I' ll be glad to hear more opinions and may be some suggestions how to improve new features (may be there are ideas how template descriptions can be done simplier). After we try to accept your ideas and opinions to make new FileCheck features better. I will make changes and publish separate patches a month later, because I'll take a holiday in June. Thanks, Elena. -----Original

Hi Paul, Thank you for information about the [[:space:]] character-class. About performance I tested on Clang/LLVM test suite. I try to profile and the problem is that I used regular expressions a lot for supporting some new features and functions in your regex library are very slow . Regex library is very old and quite awkward, in my opinion. May be you will see some ways to improve performance,