search for: thomasp

...N1]] pattern here > > as the [[]] substitution can be done when the directive is read. > > > > My $.02, > > --paulr > > > > *From:* George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> > *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2020 5:52 AM > *To:* Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai>; llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; > jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk > *Subject:* Re: [RFC][FileCheck] New option to negate check patterns > > > > ​Hi all, > > > > > I feel it mig...

As nobody seems to answer my request, I simply post it again. Is there any reason why the r-help-mailinglist should not be converted to a newsgroup? These were the advantages of a newsgroup I mentioned earlier: -) you can easily search the archives -) the discussion is faster (I experience that the R-mailinglist has a lag of about 1 to 2 hours (not for everyone!!!). When I ask a question, I get

...er of refining the match expression, which is something that you have to do sometimes anyway. The two-level matching process (regex first, evaluation later) might be surprising to people, and I'd hope the diagnostic would give a hint in that direction. --paulr From: Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 10:59 AM To: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk; 'llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org' <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck: using numeric variable defined on same line with...

...ch range, which would be either “10 “ or “10 12 13” from the first line, depending on the answer to the previous paragraph. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of James Henderson via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 4:08 AM To: Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck: using numeric variable defined on same line with caveats I think I already gave my opinion on one of the previous patches, regarding CHECK-NOT, which approximately came to the same conclusion as...

...nconsistent extention to me I think. Best regards,​ George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc​​​​​​​ ________________________________ From: James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> Sent: 31 January 2020 09:14 To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai>; Paul Robinson <paul.robinson at sony.com>; George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> Subject: [RFC][FileCheck] New option to negate check patterns [This message was sent from somebody outside of your organisation] Hi all, There have been a few cases recen...

Hi all, There have been a few cases recently where I've noticed two test cases in the same lit test that do the same thing except invert the CHECK, to show that something is NOT present. I'm talking about something like the following: # RUN: llvm-sometool --print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=STRING # RUN: llvm-sometool --no-print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NO-STRING #

I ran into an LLVM/Clang crash when attempting to do the following: 1. Build Clang from the release/9.x branch source. 2. Use the Clang from (1) to build clangd on the release/9.x branch, with LLVM_ENABLE_MODULES=On. I wrote a script to reproduce the crash: https://gist.github.com/modocache/ac366ca9673b93bb21e75d3e72162608 At the above URL, you'll find a script `repro.sh` that reproduces

Hi all, Many of our lit tests use FileCheck and a tool like llvm-readobj to check properties of a section header/symbol/etc. A typical (pseudoised for brevity) output to match against might be something like the following: Symbols [ Symbol { Name: foo Value: 0 Type: Function Section: .foo (1) } Symbol { Name: bar Value: 1 Type: Object Section: .foo (1) } ]

Hi, TL;DR: Is it ok to allow numeric variables used on same line as defined except for CHECK-NOT and with false negatives? FileCheck does not currently allow a numeric variable from being used on the same line they were defined. I have a tentative patch to add that support but it comes with caveats so before going through review I'd like to get consensus on whether those caveats are

Hi, I'm looking for some feedback on pain points people have with FileCheck in terms of missing features to help people interested in working on FileCheck to prioritize the work accordingly. I am personally interested in improving FileCheck on 2 issues whenever time permits it: * being able to test for consecutive lines in arbitrary order, i.e. something akin to CHECK-DAG blocks where