-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.8k
[clang][bpf] Fix invalid RUN lines in stack protector warning test #65251
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
2 of them were missing the ":" on the end. Adding them broke the test so I had to add a new prefix just for the warning runs only. I manually checked the first RUNs and there is no warning emitted, as expected.
@eddyz87 ping! |
I'm going to assume this is fine given that the test passes. We can always revert it if that is not the case. |
…lvm#65251) 2 of them were missing the ":" on the end. Adding them broke the test so I had to add a new prefix just for the warning runs only. I manually checked the first RUNs and there is no warning emitted, as expected.
…lvm#65251) 2 of them were missing the ":" on the end. Adding them broke the test so I had to add a new prefix just for the warning runs only. I manually checked the first RUNs and there is no warning emitted, as expected.
@DavidSpickett, my apologies, I messed up my notification settings. |
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: David Spickett (DavidSpickett) Changes2 of them were missing the ":" on the end. Adding them broke the test so I had to add a new prefix just for the warning runs only. I manually checked the first RUNs and there is no warning emitted, as expected. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65251.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/test/CodeGen/bpf-stack-protector.c b/clang/test/CodeGen/bpf-stack-protector.c
index c17af890eac23..f79a49e6aa686 100644
--- a/clang/test/CodeGen/bpf-stack-protector.c
+++ b/clang/test/CodeGen/bpf-stack-protector.c
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
// REQUIRES: bpf-registered-target
-// RUN %clang -target bpf -S -emit-llvm -o - %s -fno-stack-protector 2>&1 \
-// RUN | FileCheck -check-prefix=OFF -check-prefix=COMMON %s
+// RUN: %clang -target bpf -S -emit-llvm -o - %s -fno-stack-protector 2>&1 \
+// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=OFF -check-prefix=COMMON %s
// RUN: %clang -target bpf -S -emit-llvm -o - %s -fstack-protector 2>&1 \
-// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=ON -check-prefix=COMMON %s
+// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=ON -check-prefix=COMMON -check-prefix=WARNING %s
// RUN: %clang -target bpf -S -emit-llvm -o - %s -fstack-protector-all 2>&1 \
-// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=ALL -check-prefix=COMMON %s
+// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=ALL -check-prefix=COMMON -check-prefix=WARNING %s
// RUN: %clang -target bpf -S -emit-llvm -o - %s -fstack-protector-strong 2>&1 \
-// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=STRONG -check-prefix=COMMON %s
+// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=STRONG -check-prefix=COMMON -check-prefix=WARNING %s
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ char *strcpy(char *s1, const char *s2);
// ON: warning: ignoring '-fstack-protector'
// ALL: warning: ignoring '-fstack-protector-all'
// STRONG: warning: ignoring '-fstack-protector-strong'
-// COMMON-SAME: option as it is not currently supported for target 'bpf'
+// WARNING-SAME: option as it is not currently supported for target 'bpf'
// COMMON: define {{.*}}void @test1(ptr noundef %{{[0-9a-z]+}}) #[[A:.*]] {
void test1(const char *msg) {
|
2 of them were missing the ":" on the end.
Adding them broke the test so I had to add a new prefix just for the warning runs only.
I manually checked the first RUNs and there is no warning emitted, as expected.