From 975af2a02f3043d3fe99f48b96557b839a004548 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Joel E. Denny" <jdenny.ornl@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:09:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] [FileCheck] Fix search ranges for DAG-NOT-DAG

A DAG-NOT-DAG is a CHECK-DAG group, X, followed by a CHECK-NOT group,
N, followed by a CHECK-DAG group, Y.  Let y be the initial directive
of Y.  This patch makes the following changes to the behavior:

    1. Directives in N can no longer match within part of Y's match
       range just because y happens not to be the earliest match from
       Y.  Specifically, this patch withdraws N's search range end
       from y's match range start to Y's match range start.

    2. y can no longer match within X's match range, where a y match
       produced a reordering complaint, which is thus no longer
       possible.  Specifically, this patch withdraws y's search range
       start from X's permitted range start to X's match range end,
       which was already the search range start for other members of
       Y.

Both of these changes can only increase the number of test passes: #1
constrains the ability of CHECK-NOTs to match, and #2 expands the
ability of CHECK-DAGs to match without complaints.

These changes are based on discussions at:

   <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123550.html>
   <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47106>

which conclude that:

    1. These changes simplify the FileCheck conceptual model.  First,
       it makes search ranges for DAG-NOT-DAG more consistent with
       other cases.  Second, it was confusing that y was treated
       differently from the rest of Y.

    2. These changes add theoretical use cases for DAG-NOT-DAG that
       had no obvious means to be expressed otherwise.  We can justify
       the first half of this assertion with the observation that
       these changes can only increase the number of test passes.

    3. Reordering detection for DAG-NOT-DAG had no obvious real
       benefit.

We don't have evidence from real uses cases to help us debate
conclusions #2 and #3, but #1 at least seems intuitive.

Reviewed By: probinson

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48986

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@337605 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8