[LLD] [COFF] Clarify -print-search-path for the empty string element

[mstorsjo]

Also switch the test case to use -NEXT to strictly match all lines.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lld
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lld-coff

@llvm/pr-subscribers-platform-windows

Changes

Also switch the test case to use -NEXT to strictly match all lines.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67856.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) lld/COFF/Driver.cpp (+4-1)
• (modified) lld/test/COFF/print-search-paths.s (+18-14)

diff --git a/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp b/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp
index 61a04a74aa60278..65309168440add2 100644
--- a/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp
+++ b/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp
@@ -2084,8 +2084,11 @@ void LinkerDriver::linkerMain(ArrayRef<const char *> argsArr) {
     raw_svector_ostream stream(buffer);
     stream << "Library search paths:\n";
 
-    for (StringRef path : searchPaths)
+    for (StringRef path : searchPaths) {
+      if (path == "")
+        path = "(cwd)";
       stream << "  " << path << "\n";
+    }
 
     message(buffer);
   }
diff --git a/lld/test/COFF/print-search-paths.s b/lld/test/COFF/print-search-paths.s
index 5c292aafc68a11c..a8c8047fd74ae38 100644
--- a/lld/test/COFF/print-search-paths.s
+++ b/lld/test/COFF/print-search-paths.s
@@ -4,21 +4,25 @@
 # RUN: llvm-mc -triple i686-windows-msvc %s -filetype=obj -o %t_32.obj
 # RUN: lld-link -safeseh:no /dll /noentry /winsysroot:%t.dir/sysroot /vctoolsversion:1.1.1.1 /winsdkversion:10.0.1 %t_32.obj -print-search-paths | FileCheck -DSYSROOT=%t.dir -check-prefix=X86 %s
 # CHECK: Library search paths:
-# CHECK:   [[CPATH:.*]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}windows
-# CHECK:   [[CPATH]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib
-# CHECK:   [[CPATH]]lib
-# CHECK:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x64
-# CHECK:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}atlmfc{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x64
-# CHECK:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}ucrt{{[/\\]}}x64
-# CHECK:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}um{{[/\\]}}x64
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[CPATH:.*]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}windows
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[CPATH]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[CPATH]]lib
+# CHECK-NEXT:   (cwd)
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}DIA SDK{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}amd64
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x64
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}atlmfc{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x64
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}ucrt{{[/\\]}}x64
+# CHECK-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}um{{[/\\]}}x64
 # X86: Library search paths:
-# X86:   [[CPATH:.*]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}windows
-# X86:   [[CPATH]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib
-# X86:   [[CPATH]]lib
-# X86:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x86
-# X86:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}atlmfc{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x86
-# X86:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}ucrt{{[/\\]}}x86
-# X86:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}um{{[/\\]}}x86
+# X86-NEXT:   [[CPATH:.*]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}windows
+# X86-NEXT:   [[CPATH]]lib{{[/\\]}}clang{{[/\\]}}{{[0-9]+}}{{[/\\]}}lib
+# X86-NEXT:   [[CPATH]]lib
+# X86-NEXT:   (cwd)
+# X86-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}DIA SDK{{[/\\]}}lib
+# X86-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x86
+# X86-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}VC{{[/\\]}}Tools{{[/\\]}}MSVC{{[/\\]}}1.1.1.1{{[/\\]}}atlmfc{{[/\\]}}lib{{[/\\]}}x86
+# X86-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}ucrt{{[/\\]}}x86
+# X86-NEXT:   [[SYSROOT]]{{[/\\]}}sysroot{{[/\\]}}Windows Kits{{[/\\]}}10{{[/\\]}}Lib{{[/\\]}}10.0.1{{[/\\]}}um{{[/\\]}}x86
 
 
         .text

[tru]

Looks good, but I wonder about the (cwd) - couldn't we print the actual cwd in that case?

[mstorsjo]

Looks good, but I wonder about the (cwd) - couldn't we print the actual cwd in that case?

I guess we could, although that's a bit messier with respect to tests. (Also, perhaps it kinda loses a little bit of distinction between whether the path actually was specified as an absolute path or not - which probably isn't important?)

In all honesty, it was just the quickest solution I had for making this clearer in tests; I also considered wrapping the path in quotes, which makes it clear that we have one entry with an empty path. But Clang's printing of include directories is a similar feature, which doesn't quote the paths, so I felt it was better to go with consistency with that.

[zmodem]

lgtm

[tru]

Looks good, but I wonder about the (cwd) - couldn't we print the actual cwd in that case?

I guess we could, although that's a bit messier with respect to tests. (Also, perhaps it kinda loses a little bit of distinction between whether the path actually was specified as an absolute path or not - which probably isn't important?)

In all honesty, it was just the quickest solution I had for making this clearer in tests; I also considered wrapping the path in quotes, which makes it clear that we have one entry with an empty path. But Clang's printing of include directories is a similar feature, which doesn't quote the paths, so I felt it was better to go with consistency with that.

I am fine with this!

[mstorsjo]

Looks good, but I wonder about the (cwd) - couldn't we print the actual cwd in that case?

I guess we could, although that's a bit messier with respect to tests. (Also, perhaps it kinda loses a little bit of distinction between whether the path actually was specified as an absolute path or not - which probably isn't important?)
In all honesty, it was just the quickest solution I had for making this clearer in tests; I also considered wrapping the path in quotes, which makes it clear that we have one entry with an empty path. But Clang's printing of include directories is a similar feature, which doesn't quote the paths, so I felt it was better to go with consistency with that.

I am fine with this!

Ok, great, thanks! I also checked, and it doesn't look like lit has got a substitution for the cwd similar to how it has got %t and %S and such.