[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146041: initial commit

[Aryan Godara via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

AryanGodara created this revision.
Herald added a reviewer: bollu.
Herald added subscribers: steakhal, martong, arphaman.
Herald added a reviewer: aaron.ballman.
Herald added a reviewer: NoQ.
Herald added a project: All.
AryanGodara requested review of this revision.
Herald added projects: clang, LLDB, LLVM.
Herald added subscribers: llvm-commits, lldb-commits, cfe-commits.

Signed-off-by: aryan 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041

Files:
  clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonKinds.td
  clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
  clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp
  clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/StdLibraryFunctionsChecker.cpp
  clang/test/CXX/drs/dr16xx.cpp
  clang/test/Lexer/SourceLocationsOverflow.c
  clang/test/SemaTemplate/temp_arg_nontype_cxx20.cpp
  clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp
  clang/www/demo/index.cgi
  lldb/examples/synthetic/libcxx.py
  llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachinePassManager.h
  llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp
  llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp
  llvm/utils/check-each-file
  polly/lib/External/isl/imath/tests/test.sh

Index: polly/lib/External/isl/imath/tests/test.sh
===
--- polly/lib/External/isl/imath/tests/test.sh
+++ polly/lib/External/isl/imath/tests/test.sh
@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
 set -o pipefail
 
 if [ ! -f ../imtest ] ; then
-  echo "I can't find the imath test driver 'imtest', did you build it?"
-  echo "I can't proceed with the unit tests until you do so, sorry."
+  echo "The imath test driver 'imtest' was not found."
+  echo "It needs to be build before proceeding with the unit tests."
   exit 2
 fi
 
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
 echo ""
 echo "-- Running test to compute 1024 decimal digits of pi"
 if [ ! -f ../pi ] ; then
-  echo "I can't find the pi computing program, did you build it?"
-  echo "I can't proceed with the pi test until you do so, sorry."
+  echo "The pi computing program was not found."
+  echo "It needs to be built before proceeding with the pi test."
   exit 1
 fi
 
Index: llvm/utils/check-each-file
===
--- llvm/utils/check-each-file
+++ llvm/utils/check-each-file
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
 $linker
 if $checker
 then
-	echo "Sorry, I can't help you, $program is OK when compiled with llvm-native-gcc"
+	echo "I cannot help you, $program is OK when compiled with llvm-native-gcc"
 	exit 1
 fi
 for f in $files
Index: llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp
===
--- llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp
+++ llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExtractFunction.cpp
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
   Passes.push_back("verify");
   std::unique_ptr New = runPassesOn(Clone.get(), Passes);
   if (!New) {
-errs() << "Instruction removal failed.  Sorry. :(  Please report a bug!\n";
+errs() << "Instruction removal failed. Please report a bug!\n";
 exit(1);
   }
   return New;
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
 
   std::unique_ptr New = runPassesOn(M.get(), CleanupPasses);
   if (!New) {
-errs() << "Final cleanups failed.  Sorry. :(  Please report a bug!\n";
+errs() << "Final cleanups failed. Please report a bug!\n";
 return nullptr;
   }
   return New;
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
   if (!NewM) {
 outs() << "*** Loop extraction failed: ";
 EmitProgressBitcode(*M, "loopextraction", true);
-outs() << "*** Sorry. :(  Please report a bug!\n";
+outs() << "*** Please report a bug!\n";
 return nullptr;
   }
 
Index: llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp
===
--- llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp
+++ llvm/tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@
 }
 if (!Interpreter) {
   InterpreterSel = AutoPick;
-  Message = "Sorry, I can't automatically select an interpreter!\n";
+  Message = "I cannot automatically select an interpreter!\n";
 }
 break;
   case RunLLI:
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@
   Path.c_str(), Message, CCBinary, &SafeToolArgs, &CCToolArgv);
 } else if (InterpreterSel != CompileCustom) {
   SafeInterpreterSel = AutoPick;
-  Message = "Sorry, I can't automatically select a safe interpreter!\n";
+  Message = "I cannot automatically select a safe interpreter!\n";
 }
 break;
   case RunLLC:
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
 getToolName(), Message, CustomExecCommand);
 break;
   default:
-Message = "Sorry, this back-end is not supported by bugpoint as the "
+Message = "This back-end is not supported by bugpoint as the "
   "\"safe\" backend right now!\n";
 break;
   }
Index: llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachinePassManager.h
===
--- llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachinePassManager.h
+++ llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachinePassManager.h
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
   addRunOnModule(PassConceptT *Pass) {
 static_assert(is_detected::value,
 

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146041: Fix weirdly apologetic diagnostic messages

[Aryan Godara via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

AryanGodara added a comment.

In D146041#4192816 , @mehdi_amini 
wrote:

> You should look into the title and description of the commit: 
> https://cbea.ms/git-commit/

Is the title and description appropriate now?
I can add more details to the description, as required


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041

___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146041: Fix weirdly apologetic diagnostic messages

[Aryan Godara via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

AryanGodara added a comment.

In D146041#4193045 , @DavidSpickett 
wrote:

> Is there some standard for writing warning messages? For llvm that is, it 
> would be worth looking through the getting started guides to see. I think the 
> majority of warnings are "formal" in that sense so this seems fine.
>
> Personally I agree with making the warnings more succinct but aside from that 
> I don't see the need to change comments or testing scripts.
>
> You may consider splitting this change into 2. One that only changes warnings 
> and errors (a less controversial change) and the rest (that is up to the 
> reviewers of each bit).

I will do go through the changes I made, and first make sure to change only 
warnings and errors.

Since this is my first commit to such a large repository(and project), can you 
please guide me with this  @DavidSpickett !


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041

___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146041: Fix weirdly apologetic diagnostic messages

[Aryan Godara via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

AryanGodara added a comment.

In D146041#4193172 , @junaire wrote:

> I'm not certain if it's bad to say 'sorry', IMHO it's fine?
>
> Anyway, you can't just simply delete those words (in diagnostic messages and 
> regression tests), that doesn't work. To verify the patch is good, you can 
> run `ninja check-all` to make sure the testsuite passes.

This was one of the issues for Outreachy '23, and I asked my outreachy mentor 
to work on this issue.
I'm looking for any help to make the patch more meaningful, and get guidance 
along the way.

I'll run `ninja check-all`, before pushing the next commit for revision.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041

___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146041: Fix weirdly apologetic diagnostic messages

[Aryan Godara via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

AryanGodara added a comment.

In D146041#4195992 , @DavidSpickett 
wrote:

>> Since this is my first commit to such a large repository(and project), can 
>> you please guide me with this @DavidSpickett !
>
> Sure, you'll want to make a commit that only has changes to warnings and 
> errors. You can split up this one to do that, see part "A)" of this answer 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6217156/break-a-previous-commit-into-multiple-commits/6217314#6217314.
>  Then you can update this review with that new commit, change the 
> description/title etc. if needed.
>
> If you get confused with updating the review (happens to me all the time) you 
> can just abandon this (there is an entry in the "Add Action..." menu) and 
> make a new review as you did before.
>
> How to identify what changes should be included? I would ignore comments, 
> shell scripts, FIXMEs, or general test data. If the test is producing a 
> warning and looking for it, clearly it should be changed. If it's just random 
> data it's using to test some function, I wouldn't change it.

Thanks for the info @DavidSpickett !!
I will try to split this commit, and update on this asap (Sorry for the late 
update, I have mid-sem exams going on, I haven't abandoned this issue, still 
working on it).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146041

___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits