similar to: RFC: [FileCheck] CHECK-DAG for multiple occurrences of string

> 1. In a CHECK-DAG group, don't let the matches for patterns overlap. > 2. Add a new CHECK-DAG-N directive, where N is some integer, to express > that a pattern must have N non-overlapping matches. I think #1 is much more intuitive and easy to describe/document than #2. Changing the meaning of DAG in that way is highly unlikely to affect any existing test, IMO. And if it does, my

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > 1. In a CHECK-DAG group, don't let the matches for patterns overlap. > > 2. Add a new CHECK-DAG-N directive, where N is some integer, to express > > that a pattern must have N non-overlapping matches. > > I think #1 is much more intuitive and easy to describe/document than #2. > Changing

> -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Bogner [mailto:justin at justinbogner.com] On Behalf Of Justin > Bogner > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 12:16 PM > To: llvm-dev > Cc: jdenny.ornl at gmail.com; Robinson, Paul > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: [FileCheck] CHECK-DAG for multiple > occurrences of string > > Paul Robinson <paul.robinson at sony.com> writes:

Paul Robinson <paul.robinson at sony.com> writes: >> From: Joel E. Denny [mailto:jdenny.ornl at gmail.com] >>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >>>> 1. In a CHECK-DAG group, don't let the matches for patterns overlap. >>>> 2. Add a new CHECK-DAG-N directive, where N is some integer, to express

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:24 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Justin Bogner [mailto:justin at justinbogner.com] On Behalf Of Justin > > Bogner > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 12:16 PM > > To: llvm-dev > > Cc: jdenny.ornl at gmail.com; Robinson, Paul > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC:

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Joel E. Denny <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:24 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Justin Bogner [mailto:justin at justinbogner.com] On Behalf Of >> Justin >> > Bogner >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018

I just stumbled across r332416, which was modifying a test with multiple identical CHECK-DAG directives, which reminded me I needed to get back to you about this... sorry for the slow response. > From: Joel E. Denny [mailto:jdenny.ornl at gmail.com] >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >>> 1. In a CHECK-DAG group, don't let the matches

I would personally like a feature like that in FileCheck because it would make it a lot easier to write MachineOutliner tests, and would make the tests significantly smaller and easier to understand. - Jessica > On May 4, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Joel E. Denny via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Using FileCheck, I have not found a way to make a group of

Hi Jessica, This time I'm replying all.... On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Jessica Paquette <jpaquette at apple.com> wrote: > I would personally like a feature like that in FileCheck because it would > make it a lot easier to write MachineOutliner tests, and would make the > tests significantly smaller and easier to understand. > How do MachineOutliner tests accomplish

Right now, the tests try to accomplish the following 1. Define a sequence of instructions (e.g a,b,c) 2. Insert that sequence into k places with an unique instruction between them to make sure the outliner will yank them out *without overlaps* 3. Check for k calls to an outlined function 4. Check that the outlined sequence still exists in the program This can result in some pretty long tests

If you look at the FileCheck documentation page: http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html you'll find this intriguing example of combining -DAG with -NOT (slightly amended to avoid some potential confusion): ; CHECK-DAG: BEFORE ; CHECK-NOT: BETWEEN ; CHECK-DAG: AFTER The page says this will reject the sequence "AFTER BEFORE", which is correct. It's intuitively obvious

Nope. Sorry, your expectation is incorrect. "BETWEEN BEFORE AFTER" would be accepted, because: (1) the first –DAG matches BEFORE; (2) the –NOT range starts at the preceding match-point, i.e. the (end of the) BEFORE, thus does not find BETWEEN; (3) the second –DAG starts at the same point as the –NOT. That is, the first –DAG and the following –NOT *are* ordered; the –NOT and the

On 05/24/2018 08:46 AM, via llvm-dev wrote: > Background > ---------- > > FileCheck [0] is a cornerstone testing tool for the LLVM project. It > has grown new features over the years to meet new needs, but these > sometimes have surprising and counter-intuitive behavior [1]. This > has become even more evident in Joel Denny's recent quest to repair > what seemed like

A few replies, then I'll post a revised spec v2 which ought to incorporate all the other feedback. If I missed something, give a shout. Actually, I wish there were a way to do that [constrain DAG to a single line] for the sake of matching unordered text on a single line. SAME after DAGs is as close as I can get to that. Maybe we need a CHECK-DAG-SAME. Hmmm. You know, there were cases

Background ---------- FileCheck [0] is a cornerstone testing tool for the LLVM project. It has grown new features over the years to meet new needs, but these sometimes have surprising and counter-intuitive behavior [1]. This has become even more evident in Joel Denny's recent quest to repair what seemed like an obvious defect [2] but which led me to the conclusion [3] that FileCheck sorely

Thanks Joel and Chris, comments inline. >> CHECK: Scans the search range for a pattern match. Fails if no match >> is found.  The end of the match range becomes the start of the search >> range for subsequent directives. >> >> CHECK-SAME: Like CHECK, plus there must be zero newlines prior to the >> start of the match range. > > ... within the search

Any kind of variable definition on a CHECK-NOT line would seem like it would be asking for trouble. Do we allow text variable definitions on a NOT? False fails are better than false matches. Given that it will fail on a line where you'd expect a match, or possibly for the line to be skipped, it's a matter of refining the match expression, which is something that you have to do sometimes

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, 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

Hi, CHECK-WORD - If you want find some string in file, but you want to be sure, that this string should be a separate word. There are examples in file. Prefixes which can be described as regular expressions should be turning on with option -regex-prefixes . By default, you can't use it. Thanks for your comments. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Roelofs [mailto:jonathan at