When one mistakenly specifies 'def' instead of using 'defm',
the error message is quite misleading: 'Couldn't find class..'
Instead, it should recommend using defm if the multiclass of
same name exists.
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59294
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@356985
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
}
Record *Result = Records.getClass(Lex.getCurStrVal());
- if (!Result)
- TokError("Couldn't find class '" + Lex.getCurStrVal() + "'");
+ if (!Result) {
+ std::string Msg("Couldn't find class '" + Lex.getCurStrVal() + "'");
+ if (MultiClasses[Lex.getCurStrVal()].get())
+ TokError(Msg + ". Use 'defm' if you meant to use multiclass '" +
+ Lex.getCurStrVal() + "'");
+ else
+ TokError(Msg);
+ }
Lex.Lex();
return Result;
--- /dev/null
+// RUN: not llvm-tblgen %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+// XFAIL: vg_leak
+
+// This test checks that using def instead of defm gives a meaningful error
+multiclass M2 {
+ def X;
+}
+
+// CHECK: error: Couldn't find class 'M2'. Use 'defm' if you meant to use multiclass 'M2'
+def rec1 : M2;