search for: d90281

Hello all, TL;DR; if you used FileCheck --check-prefixes and you missed (misspelled, for instance) one of the prefixes in your test, FileCheck silently ignores that and the test passes. 1579 tests have this property. *The details* *=========* Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck, --allow-unused-prefixes, to indicate whether the current behavior is intended (for instance, jdoerf...

...missed (misspelled, >> for instance) one of the prefixes in your test, FileCheck silently ignores >> that and the test passes. >> >> 1579 tests have this property. >> >> >> *The details* >> *=========* >> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion there >> for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >> >> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >> >> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck, >> --allow-unused-prefixes, to indicate whether th...

...n your test, FileCheck >>>> silently ignores that and the test passes. >>>> >>>> 1579 tests have this property. >>>> >>>> >>>> *The details* >>>> *=========* >>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion >>>> there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >>>> >>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>> >>>> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck, >>>>...

...ores that and the test passes. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1579 tests have this property. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck, -...

...; >> >>>>>> 1579 tests have this property. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The details >> >>>>>> ========= >> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >> full context) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> T...

...tests have this property. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The details >>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>>> full context) >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>> >>>>>...

...instance) one of the prefixes in your test, FileCheck >>> silently ignores that and the test passes. >>> >>> 1579 tests have this property. >>> >>> >>> *The details* >>> *=========* >>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion >>> there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >>> >>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>> >>> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck, >>> --allow-unused-prefixes...

...gt;>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>>>>> full context) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >&...

...gt;>> silently ignores that and the test passes. >>>>> >>>>> 1579 tests have this property. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *The details* >>>>> *=========* >>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion >>>>> there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >>>>> >>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>>> >>>>> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileChe...

...> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details > >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the > discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for > full context) > >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. > >>>>>&g...

...>>>>>> > >>>>>> 1579 tests have this property. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The details > >>>>>> ========= > >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion > there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The proposal is to add an expl...

...> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>>>>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>>>>>>> full context) >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem...

...gt;> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the > discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for > full context) > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. > >...

...gt;>>> 1579 tests have this property. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The details >>> >>>>>> ========= >>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>> full context) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>> >>>>>> >>> &g...

...ores that and the test passes. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1579 tests have this property. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>> ========= >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older >>>>>> changes" for full context) >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>>>> >>>>>> The...

...perty. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>>>> full context) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>>>...

...;> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details > >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= > >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and > the discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" > for full context) > >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the...

...>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >>>>>>> >>>>&g...

...>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the >>>>>>> discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for >>>>>>> full context) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by t...

...t;>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The details >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========= >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context) >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;. >> >>>>>...