d91e5c3013
Multiple improvements to make the messages more concrete, actionable and less confusing when multiple prefixes are used in `-verify=`. The common theme among these was that prior to the patch all error messages would use the alphabetically first prefix, even if the error was associated with a different one. - Mention the actual expected but unseen directive: Prior to this change when reporting expected but unseen directive, the alphabetically first one would be used to report the error even if that's not the one present in the source. Reword the diagnostic if multiple prefixes are active and include the real spelling of the expected directive for each expected but not seen line in the output. - Reword the seen but not expected error message if multiple directives are active to avoid having to pick an arbitrary (the first) prefix for it. - Include the full spelling of the directive when reporting a directive following the no-diagnostics directive. For example "'foo-error' directive cannot follow 'foo-no-diagnostics' directive" - Use the first appearing `-no-diagnostics` directive, in the above message instead of the first one alphabetically. The new wording > diagnostics with '(error|warning|remark|note)' severity seen but not expected instead of > '<prefix>-(error|warning|remark|note)' diagnostics seen but not expected is only used when multiple prefixes are present, the error messages stay the same with a single prefix only.
49 lines
2.2 KiB
C
49 lines
2.2 KiB
C
// Test the diagnostic messages of -verify with multiple prefixes.
|
|
// - Expected but not seen errors should contain the prefix of the directive
|
|
// - Seen but not expected errors should not choose an arbitrary prefix
|
|
// - "expected directive cannot follow '<prefix>-no-diagnostics'" should report an actual
|
|
// expected-no-diagnostics prefix present in the source.
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -verify=foo,bar %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK1
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -verify=bar,foo %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK1
|
|
|
|
undefined_type x; // #1
|
|
|
|
// foo-error{{there is no error here}}
|
|
// bar-error{{error not seen}}
|
|
// bar-note{{declared here}}
|
|
// bar-error{{another error not seen}}
|
|
// bar-error-re{{regex error{{}} not present}}
|
|
|
|
// CHECK1: error: diagnostics with 'error' severity expected but not seen:
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 12 'foo-error': there is no error here
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 13 'bar-error': error not seen
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 15 'bar-error': another error not seen
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 16 'bar-error-re': regex error{{{{[}][}]}} not present
|
|
// CHECK1: error: diagnostics with 'error' severity seen but not expected:
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 10: unknown type name 'undefined_type'
|
|
// CHECK1: error: diagnostics with 'note' severity expected but not seen:
|
|
// CHECK1: Line 14 'bar-note': declared here
|
|
// CHECK1: 6 errors generated.
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -verify=baz,qux,quux %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK2
|
|
|
|
// qux-no-diagnostics
|
|
// baz-error@#1{{unknown type name 'undefined_type'}}
|
|
// quux-no-diagnostics
|
|
// qux-error-re@#1{{unknown type name 'undefined_type'}}
|
|
|
|
// CHECK2: error: diagnostics with 'error' severity seen but not expected:
|
|
// CHECK2: Line 10: unknown type name 'undefined_type'
|
|
// CHECK2: Line 32: 'baz-error' directive cannot follow 'qux-no-diagnostics' directive
|
|
// CHECK2: Line 34: 'qux-error-re' directive cannot follow 'qux-no-diagnostics' directive
|
|
|
|
// RUN: not %clang_cc1 -verify=spam,eggs %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK3
|
|
|
|
// eggs-error@#1{{unknown type name 'undefined_type'}}
|
|
// spam-no-diagnostics
|
|
|
|
// CHECK3: error: diagnostics with 'error' severity seen but not expected:
|
|
// CHECK3: Line 44: 'spam-no-diagnostics' directive cannot follow other expected directives
|
|
// CHECK3: 1 error generated.
|