Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "questoms".
Did you mean:
questions
2020 Jul 14
5
Multiple documents in one test file
...er we can add a separate extractor utility:
```
# RUN: extract bb %s | llvm-mc - 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=BB
or
# RUN: extract bb %s -o %t.bb
# RUN: llvm-mc %t.bb 2>&1 | FileCheck %t.bb
```
The advantage is its versatility. The downside is somewhat verbose syntax.
Some questoms:
1. What do people think of the two approaches? An in-utility option vs a standalone utility.
2. For llvm-mc, if we go with an option, is there a better name than --doc-id? David Blaikie proposed --asm-id
(This is my personal preference, trading 30+ lines in a utility for simpler syntax)
3. If...
2020 Jul 14
2
Multiple documents in one test file
...//t.bb> | llvm-mc - 2>&1 | FileCheck
> %t.bb <http://t.bb>
>
> (could even make it a bit shorter for convenience - 'ex' or something)
>
>
> The advantage is its versatility. The downside is somewhat verbose
> syntax.
>
>
> Some questoms:
>
> 1. What do people think of the two approaches? An in-utility option
> vs a standalone utility.
> 2. For llvm-mc, if we go with an option, is there a better name than
> --doc-id? David Blaikie proposed --asm-id
> (This is my personal preference, trading...
2020 Jul 14
2
Multiple documents in one test file
...RUN: extract bb %s | llvm-mc - 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=BB
>
> or
>
> # RUN: extract bb %s -o %t.bb
> # RUN: llvm-mc %t.bb 2>&1 | FileCheck %t.bb
> ```
>
> The advantage is its versatility. The downside is somewhat verbose syntax.
>
>
> Some questoms:
>
> 1. What do people think of the two approaches? An in-utility option vs a
> standalone utility.
> 2. For llvm-mc, if we go with an option, is there a better name than
> --doc-id? David Blaikie proposed --asm-id
> (This is my personal preference, trading 30+ lines in a utili...