similar to: [RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes

There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>. These seem to be the larger areas there. If you see an area you have ownership or expertise in, please sign up for fixing the tests by Monday, Nov. 9. Otherwise, I will "blanket-add" --allow-unused-prefixes=true to the

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:30 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet >> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:36 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at

There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that. If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about: - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted - we use

I think it would make more sense to add it at each individual call site. This ensures that all cases are fixed, rather than just one in a file. It also ensures that in the (hopefully unlikely) event that there are both intentional and unintentional use-cases within a file, each one gets checked. On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 20:29, Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

I recently discovered that multi-line RUN statements can actually be interrupted with non-RUN lines, without changing the behaviour. In other words, you can do something like: # RUN: some command --option1 \ ## Comment # CHECK: check something # RUN: --option2 And you'd end up with "some command --option1 --option2" being run. It's rather surprising behaviour, and not one

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 01:03 James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I don't know if lit's parser is up to this (I suspect it isn't), but could > you add a comment to the end/in the middle of a RUN? Something like `# RUN: > do some thing | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=UNUSED --allow-unused-prefixes > ## FIXME? That would avoid changing the line

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have > output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, > they check debug info. Adding

My preference would be to go with the tri-value option - I think the downside of folks needing to write a value after "-allow-unused-prefixes" is not that terrible; if folks feel that using true/false/auto is weird, how about "allowed/disallowed/script_allowed" or something like that. I'd argue that the value here is getting to the place where the default is right (so we

how about -allow-unused-prefixes=needs_review On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't feel too strongly about the "=true" bit for legitimate cases - > I'd prefer not to have it, but it's not the end of the world. > I do feel more strongly that if you're going to automatically add it > to cases that might

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:30 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>. > These seem to be the larger areas there. > > If you see an area you have ownership or expertise in, please

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:30 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the

Thanks! On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:50 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:36 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I think it would make more sense to add it at each individual call site. > This ensures that all cases are fixed, rather than just one in a file. It > also ensures that in the (hopefully unlikely) event that there are both > intentional and unintentional use-cases within a file, each one

Oh! Perfect - thanks! (plus, if it becomes unsupported, there's another nudge to fix :) ) On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:05 AM James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I recently discovered that multi-line RUN statements can actually be > interrupted with non-RUN lines, without changing the behaviour. In other > words, you can do something like: > > # RUN:

Hi, I wrote a script to help removing unused trivial prefixes. It is located in llvm/utils/update_test_prefix.py. It is a rough one and based on problems I met. It also highly relies on the output of llvm-lit and update tools. So carefully verification on its changes is MUST. Here's the usage of it: 1. turn allow-unused-prefixes to false and built it: sed -i

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that. Got a sense of roughly how many are like this? (have you found a lot, or so far

I don't know if lit's parser is up to this (I suspect it isn't), but could you add a comment to the end/in the middle of a RUN? Something like `# RUN: do some thing | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=UNUSED --allow-unused-prefixes ## FIXME? That would avoid changing the line count. Alternatively, I'd just fixup the tests as you go (i.e. change the expected line number, if they're

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:06 PM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for

I think David Blaikie already touched on it - it leaves noise in the tests that isn't immediately clear why it is present. Individuals are more likely to therefore ignore it. Test noise should be kept to a minimum, as it a) obfuscates what's important and b) might get copied over when people want to create a new test based on an existing one. What's the negative with fixing the tests?