hnrklssn added a comment.
In D148216#4431456 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148216#4431456>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> could you put a little more information in the commit message please. "It
> won't do X when we do Y", could mean a lot of things. We don't do Y anymore,
> or we do X' now, with various choices for X'.
I've updated the commit message to clarify what it means to not emit hardcoded
identifiers, and that we instead emit regex checkers. Was that what you were
aiming for, or are there other parts that you would like me to clarify?
================
Comment at: llvm/utils/UpdateTestChecks/common.py:1286
+ if value == default_value:
+ continue
if action.dest == 'filters':
----------------
nikic wrote:
> We should also not print the `all` argument for `--check-globals` argument
> for `version < 3`, otherwise that will introduce a spurious change in all
> such tests.
I don't know how to dynamically change the `--check-globals` option between
`store_true` and `choices`, since the behaviour can itself be affected by which
argument is passed to the `--version` option. So the way I see it there's no
way of knowing how to parse between two different option types ahead of time.
For the default when no option is specified the parsing is the same however, so
we can simply infer later what option is implied based on the version.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148216/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148216
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
