search for: line_after_foo

...spite it being a positive matching directive, there's a risk with CHECK-DAG in case a test rely on the way CHECK-DAG is implemented. Consider the following directives which rely on each directive being matched in order: CHECK: BEGIN CHECK-DAG: [[#VAR1:]] [[#VAR1+1]] CHECK-DAG: FOO CHECK-DAG: [[LINE_AFTER_FOO:.*]] CHECK: END CHECK-NOT: [[LINE_AFTER_FOO]] BAZ This could be written if the line checked by the first CHECK-DAG is guaranteed to always be either before FOO or after the line after FOO. Now consider the following input that verifies this invariant: BEGIN 10 12 13 FOO 10 11 FOOBAR END 10 12 13...

...hink I already gave my opinion on one of the previous patches, regarding CHECK-NOT, which approximately came to the same conclusion as what you've got here, so +1 from me. I also think the CHECK-DAG example is not one to care about. It seems to me that there's no guarantee what CHECK-DAG: [[LINE_AFTER_FOO:.*]] would match, as, if I followed it correctly, CHECK-DAGs don't have any guarantee of order within a group, so it could match either the next line after BEGIN, the line after [[#VAR1:]] [[#VAR1+1]] or indeed any line before END. James On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:29, Thomas Preud'homme v...

...hink I already gave my opinion on one of the previous patches, regarding CHECK-NOT, which approximately came to the same conclusion as what you've got here, so +1 from me. I also think the CHECK-DAG example is not one to care about. It seems to me that there's no guarantee what CHECK-DAG: [[LINE_AFTER_FOO:.*]] would match, as, if I followed it correctly, CHECK-DAGs don't have any guarantee of order within a group, so it could match either the next line after BEGIN, the line after [[#VAR1:]] [[#VAR1+1]] or indeed any line before END. James On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:29, Thomas Preud'hom...