Unique_Usman added a comment. In D148601#4295719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148601#4295719>, @tbaeder wrote:
> 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. I used -verify=foo,bar but, the prefixes still have just only one item, in the case bar. Does this the implementation of getting the prefixes is faulty? 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
