On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 15:31 -0500, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > > I think this implementation has an undesired surprising behavior.
> > > Imagine you have a log like this:
> > >
> > > A
> > > C
> > > D
> > > B
> > >
> > > And you specify
> > >
> > > __msg("A")
> > > __nomsg("B")
> > > __msg("C")
> > > __msg("D")
> > > __msg("B")
[...]
> I think it's useful in general, I believe I had few cases where this
> would be helpful. So submitting separately makes sense. But I think
> this patch set doesn't need it if we can validate logic in last patch
> without relying on this feature.
Ok, will do it separately. While at it can also add two more features:
- __msg_next, again mimicking FileCheck [0], which would require match to
be on a line subsequent to previous match;
- __msg_re, with support for regular expressions (using [1]).
[0] https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Regular-Expressions.html
