Bigcheese added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/ClangScanDeps/optimize-system-warnings.m:19 +// CHECK: ], +// CHECK-NEXT: "name": "A" +// CHECK-NEXT: }, ---------------- jansvoboda11 wrote: > I'd like to see a check line that would fail if the scanner reports another > variant of module `A`. The `CHECK:` lines make it possible for FileCheck to > skip an entire element in the modules array. (Structural matching on JSON in > FileCheck would be a godsend.) The way FileCheck works I do not believe this can happen. A `CHECK:` line finds the first line that matches, and `CHECK-NEXT:` follows exactly after that. There's no case where we have a `CHECK:` that can skip over another entire module entry. ================ Comment at: clang/test/ClangScanDeps/optimize-system-warnings.m:30 +// CHECK: ], +// CHECK-NEXT: "name": "B" +// CHECK-NEXT: } ---------------- jansvoboda11 wrote: > I'd expect the scanner to still produce two variants of module `B`, since > it's a user module. Is that correct? If so, let's add explicit check for it, > since we intentionally want to preserve the warning flags there. Both `A` and `B` are system modules. `A` is found via `-isystem`, and `B` has the `[system]` attribute. The FileCheck lines will only succeed if there are exactly two modules returned. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
