similar to: [LLVMdev] Queries about FileCheck's CHECK-DAG: directive

If I understand correctly, the desire is to change the current behavior in a kind of subtle way. Is there some way you could instrument trunk's FileCheck to die if the old behavior is encountered, and use that to definitively find all tests which rely on the current behavior and migrate them (possibly to an interim solution) in preparation for the change in semantics? How much is the old

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

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

Hello, FileCheck allows us to define match variables and use them on subsequent lines. This is quite useful, but could be even more useful if it was possible to use the variable later on the same line it matched. For example, I would want to write this: ; CHECK: bic [[REG:r[0-9]+]], [[REG]], #3 But I currently can't because [[REG]] will only match a REG variable defined on a _previous_

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

"--strict-whitespace By default, FileCheck canonicalizes input horizontal whitespace (spaces and tabs) which causes it to ignore these differences (a space will match a tab). The/--strict-whitespace/ <http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html#cmdoption--strict-whitespace>argument disables this behavior. End-of-line sequences are canonicalized to UNIX-style ‘n’ in all

http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html says FileCheck ignores white spaces/tabs by default unless you use "--strict-whitespace" option. 2013/3/15 Shawn <shaolin.xie at ia.ac.cn>: > Hi all: > I'm writing testcase for the MC layer regression in llvm, the > disassembled string is a bit complicate, for example: > "IALU.T0 (I0) = BIU0.DM ; REPEAT

See: http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html It is not required to pipe output to FileCheck; there is the --input-file option, which allows you to run FileCheck on an existing disk file. Something like this: FileCheck %s --input-file a.rpt --check-prefix=A FileCheck %s --input-file b.rpt --check-prefix=B FileCheck %s --input-file c.rpt --check-prefix=C If there are common parts to each

+jyknight, who added --match-full-lines On 12/14/16 5:25 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > Hi, > > this patch adds a --verbose option to FileCheck. [ An alternative name > could be --debug or --debug-pattern. ] > > Consider a file CHECK: > ... > // CHECK-LABEL:bla1 > // CHECK-NEXT:bla2 > // CHECK-NEXT: bla3 > // CHECK-NEXT:bla4 > // CHECK-NEXT: bla5 > ... >

Seems pretty useful! +1 to Jon's comments. Procedural remark: patches normally go to llvm-commits not llvm-dev. --paulr > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 8:09 AM > To: Tom de Vries; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; James Y Knight > Subject: Re:

So I manage to get clang's colored output through ninja simply by force (CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=-fcolor-diagnostics), which isn't ideal (if I were to pipe ninja's output to a file it'd still have color escapes, etc) but it works. But I haven't found a similar solution for FileCheck & I'm wondering has anyone already solved this problem for themselves - if so, how? if not,

I've read through the docs, but honestly this is driving me crazy and I shouldn't have to fight this hard to just to write some documentation. Here's the problem: Look at llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst I want to add a table of contents that looks like this [ http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html] to that file. Nothing I've tried works. (Also, no I'm not trying to add it in

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

Hi Paul, On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:46 AM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> 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

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

> -----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:

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

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

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

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