tbaeder added a comment. In D148601#4279604 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4279604>, @Unique_Usman wrote:
> In D148601#4279334 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4279334>, @tbaeder wrote: > >> I am not 100% sure about the semantics of passing multiple prefixes, i.e. if >> the error is emitted for all prefixes individually or if it's only emitted >> if no `expected` line for any of the prefixes is found. In the latter case >> we should probably add all the prefixes to the error message. > > I tested different scenerios e.g added more than one RUN lines with different > value of -verify, what I concluded on is that if we have multiple RUN lines > with each of them having no directive, the prefixes generated is always of > the first occurence with no expected directive so, the error is always > generated for the first occurence with no expected directive. Yeah but I think you can do `-verify=foo,bar`(?) in which case the list f prefixes would actually have more than one item. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
