[FileCheck] Add precision to format specifier

[thopre]

Summary

Add printf-style precision specifier to pad numbers to a given number of
digits when matching them if the value is smaller than the given
precision. This works on both empty numeric expression (e.g. variable
definition from input) and when matching a numeric expression. The
syntax is as follows:

[[#%.<precision><format specifier>, ...]

where <format specifier> is optional and ... can be a variable
definition or not with an empty expression or not. In the absence of a
precision specifier, a variable definition will accept leading zeros.

[jhenderson]

I think I agree with your conclusions. More generally, I think we should be permissive, where permissiveness is not going to be surprising (i.e. no explicit format specifier seems reasonable in the general context), and should follow scanf style format specifiers where reasonable. If I follow it right, it would therefore be possible to specify a 16-digit hex field with %.16x, right? Could you clarify what the motivation of the "with empty expression" bit is for? Is that just because when there is an empty expression, your regex is incorrect, or something else?

The code change in general seems simple enough to support the proposal too, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. I'll wait until you've added documentation/tests etc, so that I can review it all at once.

[thopre]

In D81667#2092260, @jhenderson wrote:

I think I agree with your conclusions. More generally, I think we should be permissive, where permissiveness is not going to be surprising (i.e. no explicit format specifier seems reasonable in the general context), and should follow scanf style format specifiers where reasonable. If I follow it right, it would therefore be possible to specify a 16-digit hex field with %.16x, right? Could you clarify what the motivation of the "with empty expression" bit is for? Is that just because when there is an empty expression, your regex is incorrect, or something else?

When only using a numeric expression, numeric substitution blocks are behaving as printf: print a value as text to be matched against the input. When defining a variable with an empty expression (the majority of definition cases), it behaves more like a scanf. Only printf support a precision in its syntax. Scanf doesn't support it. This is the main reason why I ask the question. It is also the case that we currently allow leading zeros when matching an unknown numeric value for a numeric variable definition with empty expression.

I think the case of a variable defined from an expression is a special case since you are matching something specific so in itself doesn't mandate extending the precision to variable definition with empty expression. However I think allowing a precision when matching an unknown variable is both useful and makes for syntax consistency.

To answer your earlier question, yes it'll be possible to match a 16-bit hex with #%.16x,VAR1: or an 8-bit hex with #%.8x, VAR2:. However #%.8, VAR1 will print all 16-bit of VAR1, same as printf. Does that seem reasonable or should we deviate from printf and give an error in such a case?

The code change in general seems simple enough to support the proposal too, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. I'll wait until you've added documentation/tests etc, so that I can review it all at once.

[jhenderson]

In D81667#2092827, @thopre wrote:

In D81667#2092260, @jhenderson wrote:

I think I agree with your conclusions. More generally, I think we should be permissive, where permissiveness is not going to be surprising (i.e. no explicit format specifier seems reasonable in the general context), and should follow scanf style format specifiers where reasonable. If I follow it right, it would therefore be possible to specify a 16-digit hex field with %.16x, right? Could you clarify what the motivation of the "with empty expression" bit is for? Is that just because when there is an empty expression, your regex is incorrect, or something else?

When only using a numeric expression, numeric substitution blocks are behaving as printf: print a value as text to be matched against the input. When defining a variable with an empty expression (the majority of definition cases), it behaves more like a scanf. Only printf support a precision in its syntax. Scanf doesn't support it. This is the main reason why I ask the question. It is also the case that we currently allow leading zeros when matching an unknown numeric value for a numeric variable definition with empty expression.

I think the case of a variable defined from an expression is a special case since you are matching something specific so in itself doesn't mandate extending the precision to variable definition with empty expression. However I think allowing a precision when matching an unknown variable is both useful and makes for syntax consistency.

To answer your earlier question, yes it'll be possible to match a 16-bit hex with #%.16x,VAR1: or an 8-bit hex with #%.8x, VAR2:. However #%.8, VAR1 will print all 16-bit of VAR1, same as printf. Does that seem reasonable or should we deviate from printf and give an error in such a case?

I think that seems reasonable to me overall. Thanks for explaining.

[MaskRay]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheckImpl.h

56

Prefer default member initializer (unsigned Precision = 0;)

[jdenny]

Should the regex wildcard for a numeric variable definition with empty expression also respect the precision, i.e. #%.5u, VAR2: would be matched by (([1-9][0-9]+)? [0-9]{1,5})

I believe I followed the comments about matching behavior for an empty expression (scanf-like) vs. an expression (printf-like). So the above question is about whether, in the empty-expression case, it's worthwhile to support a precision specified by . even though scanf does not support that. Right?

I don't understand the above regex due to the space character after the ?. Was that intended?

Can you give some example inputs and explain the intended matching behavior for #%.5u, VAR2:? Why is this behavior needed in FileCheck but not in scanf?

[thopre]

In D81667#2098443, @jdenny wrote:

Should the regex wildcard for a numeric variable definition with empty expression also respect the precision, i.e. #%.5u, VAR2: would be matched by (([1-9][0-9]+)? [0-9]{1,5})

I believe I followed the comments about matching behavior for an empty expression (scanf-like) vs. an expression (printf-like). So the above question is about whether, in the empty-expression case, it's worthwhile to support a precision specified by . even though scanf does not support that. Right?

Correct.

I don't understand the above regex due to the space character after the ?. Was that intended?

No, fixed now.

Can you give some example inputs and explain the intended matching behavior for #%.5u, VAR2:? Why is this behavior needed in FileCheck but not in scanf?

Say the directive is:

CHECK: Address #%.8x,ADDR: is aligned

and the input text is:

Address 12345678 is aligned

I'd expect the directive to match and the value in ADDR to be 0x12345678. Now if the input text was:

Address FFFFFFFF12345678

I'd expect the directive to fail. If the directive was #%x, ADDR: the first input would have led to the same outcome but the second input would have led the directive matching and the value in ADDR to be 0xFFFFFFFF12345678.

Besides whether this is a useful feature, it makes for easier parsing and consistency in the syntax (no difference between variables defined from an expression where the precision would be allowed and variables defined from an empty expression where precision would not be allowed).

[thopre]

In D81667#2098537, @thopre wrote:

In D81667#2098443, @jdenny wrote:

Can you give some example inputs and explain the intended matching behavior for #%.5u, VAR2:? Why is this behavior needed in FileCheck but not in scanf?

Besides whether this is a useful feature, it makes for easier parsing and consistency in the syntax (no difference between variables defined from an expression where the precision would be allowed and variables defined from an empty expression where precision would not be allowed).

I forgot to mention that scanf doesn't need this because it's separate from printf (weaker need for consistency) and I guess aims at parsing some value more than checking format.

[jdenny]

I don't understand the above regex due to the space character after the ?. Was that intended?

No, fixed now.

It now says #%.5u, VAR2: matches (([1-9][0-9]+)?[0-9]{1,5}), but that matches 123456789. I think that's unintended.

Can you give some example inputs and explain the intended matching behavior for #%.5u, VAR2:? Why is this behavior needed in FileCheck but not in scanf?

Say the directive is:

CHECK: Address #%.8x,ADDR: is aligned

and the input text is:

Address 12345678 is aligned

I'd expect the directive to match and the value in ADDR to be 0x12345678. Now if the input text was:

Address FFFFFFFF12345678

I'd expect the directive to fail.

You mean fail to match and continue searching? Or fail immediately?

So, %.8x is a maximum? For printf, it's a minimum. scanf's %8x (no .) feels more like what you're going for except that it discards additional digits instead of failing to match.

[thopre]

In D81667#2098625, @jdenny wrote:

I don't understand the above regex due to the space character after the ?. Was that intended?

No, fixed now.

It now says #%.5u, VAR2: matches (([1-9][0-9]+)?[0-9]{1,5}), but that matches 123456789. I think that's unintended.

Can you give some example inputs and explain the intended matching behavior for #%.5u, VAR2:? Why is this behavior needed in FileCheck but not in scanf?

Say the directive is:

CHECK: Address #%.8x,ADDR: is aligned

and the input text is:

Address 12345678 is aligned

I'd expect the directive to match and the value in ADDR to be 0x12345678. Now if the input text was:

Address FFFFFFFF12345678

I'd expect the directive to fail.

You mean fail to match and continue searching? Or fail immediately?

So, %.8x is a maximum? For printf, it's a minimum. scanf's %8x (no .) feels more like what you're going for except that it discards additional digits instead of failing to match.

My bad, my example was completely wrong. My personal motivation is consistency in the syntax. New example:

I'd expect 0x[[#%.8x, ADDR:]] to match 00001234 or FFFFFFFF12345678 but not 1234 due to there not being enough digits. I guess it could be useful to check alignment in a tool but as I said my main motivation is keeping a common format specifier syntax for all numeric substitution blocks. Note that my regex was indeed wrong anyway, it should be (([1-9][0-9]+)?[0-9]{5}).

[jdenny]

I'd expect 0x[[#%.8x, ADDR:]] to match 00001234 or FFFFFFFF12345678 but not 1234 due to there not being enough digits.

OK, it would expect a value that could have been printed by printf with %.8x.

I guess it could be useful to check alignment in a tool but as I said my main motivation is keeping a common format specifier syntax for all numeric substitution blocks. Note that my regex was indeed wrong anyway, it should be (([1-9][0-9]+)?[0-9]{5}).

I think you want + to be * to permit 123456.

What would happen on 012345? Would it match 01234 and leave 5 for a later directive, or would FileCheck fail immediately?

[jhenderson]

In D81667#2098944, @jdenny wrote:

I'd expect 0x[[#%.8x, ADDR:]] to match 00001234 or FFFFFFFF12345678 but not 1234 due to there not being enough digits.

OK, it would expect a value that could have been printed by printf with %.8x.

FWIW, this is what I'm imagining the overall behaviour to be. If printf could have produced the output for a given format specifier, we should accept it, and conversely if it can't produce the output for a given format specifier, we shouldn't accept it.

I'm not sure whether we should consume all digits before applying the precision check or not though. I can see benefits for either side.

[thopre]

In D81667#2100049, @jhenderson wrote:

In D81667#2098944, @jdenny wrote:

I'd expect 0x[[#%.8x, ADDR:]] to match 00001234 or FFFFFFFF12345678 but not 1234 due to there not being enough digits.

OK, it would expect a value that could have been printed by printf with %.8x.

FWIW, this is what I'm imagining the overall behaviour to be. If printf could have produced the output for a given format specifier, we should accept it, and conversely if it can't produce the output for a given format specifier, we shouldn't accept it.

I'm not sure whether we should consume all digits before applying the precision check or not though. I can see benefits for either side.

We currently accept numbers with leading zeroes but printf would not produce those without a precision. Should we start by fixing this then?

[jhenderson]

In D81667#2100079, @thopre wrote:

In D81667#2100049, @jhenderson wrote:

In D81667#2098944, @jdenny wrote:

I'd expect 0x[[#%.8x, ADDR:]] to match 00001234 or FFFFFFFF12345678 but not 1234 due to there not being enough digits.

OK, it would expect a value that could have been printed by printf with %.8x.

FWIW, this is what I'm imagining the overall behaviour to be. If printf could have produced the output for a given format specifier, we should accept it, and conversely if it can't produce the output for a given format specifier, we shouldn't accept it.

I'm not sure whether we should consume all digits before applying the precision check or not though. I can see benefits for either side.

We currently accept numbers with leading zeroes but printf would not produce those without a precision. Should we start by fixing this then?

I think we need leading zeros to be accepted until we have an alternative in place. Otherwise, there may be existing tests that rely on the current behaviour which we can't migrate. I think that means a rough order of: 1) Add precision support; 2) Migrate existing tests to use it where needed; 3) Stop accepting leading zeros except via precision. 2) and 3) can probably be done at the same time. We should only do them as part of 1) if it's harder to keep them separate, in my opinion.

[MaskRay]

I want to raise one point. Some people may expect format specifier to be similar to scanf, instead of printf. scanf uses similar but less powerful format specifiers than printf. For instance, . is not valid in scanf. %.4u should fail (though glibc appears to be weird things; musl is good). In scanf, %4u reads at most 4 digits, not exactly 4 digits. The only way is %4c plus a conversion -> this is certainly not suitable in FileCheck. Anyway %.4u stills looks good to me.

If no variable is captured, is the syntax [[#%.4u:]]?

[thopre]

In D81667#2102317, @MaskRay wrote:

I want to raise one point. Some people may expect format specifier to be similar to scanf, instead of printf. scanf uses similar but less powerful format specifiers than printf. For instance, . is not valid in scanf. %.4u should fail (though glibc appears to be weird things; musl is good). In scanf, %4u reads at most 4 digits, not exactly 4 digits. The only way is %4c plus a conversion -> this is certainly not suitable in FileCheck. Anyway %.4u stills looks good to me.

That's exactly the point of the second question in the description. Capturing a variable feels more like scanf but I think a unified syntax makes more sense. This is where we need to diverge from the printf/scanf analogy. Since the accepted format is defined explicitely in the documentation I don't think it's a big problem.

If no variable is captured, is the syntax [[#%.4u:]]?

It would be #%.4u or simply #%.4 since u is the default format specifier.

[MaskRay]

In D81667#2103464, @thopre wrote:

In D81667#2102317, @MaskRay wrote:

I want to raise one point. Some people may expect format specifier to be similar to scanf, instead of printf. scanf uses similar but less powerful format specifiers than printf. For instance, . is not valid in scanf. %.4u should fail (though glibc appears to be weird things; musl is good). In scanf, %4u reads at most 4 digits, not exactly 4 digits. The only way is %4c plus a conversion -> this is certainly not suitable in FileCheck. Anyway %.4u stills looks good to me.

That's exactly the point of the second question in the description. Capturing a variable feels more like scanf but I think a unified syntax makes more sense. This is where we need to diverge from the printf/scanf analogy. Since the accepted format is defined explicitely in the documentation I don't think it's a big problem.

If no variable is captured, is the syntax [[#%.4u:]]?

It would be #%.4u or simply #%.4 since u is the default format specifier.

Nice. [[#%.4u]] (non-capturing) and [[#%.4u,ADDR:]] (capturing) looks good to me. Might be worth noting that it is not a scanf-supported specifier.

[thopre]

Finish implementation based on consensus reached on questions raised by the proof of concept version.

[thopre]

Add example of precision in documentation

[jhenderson]

Functionality looks reasonable, although I haven't checked the testing yet.

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

738

If we expand this out, the full syntax is apparently [[#%.<precision><precision><conversion specifier>,<NUMVAR:]], which I don't think is what you mean :-)

742–743

Should we say something about leading zeros beyond those required by the precision value?

746

Nit: There's a double space after "to".

765

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

48

StringRef?

787

Can you fix the case of fmtloc whilst you're modifying this line, please?

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheckImpl.h

82

[thopre]

Address most comments

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

742–743

Is that what you expected?

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

48

ostringstream below does not understand StringRef so I would need to do .str() which can be expensive. Any reason not to keep const char*?

[grimar]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

69

Seems you should be able to do the following instead?

return (RegexPrefix + Twine(Precision) + "}").str();

78

Perhaps, it might be simpler just to merge switches and write the logic here as:

Expected<std::string> ExpressionFormat::getWildcardRegex() const {
  if (Value == Kind::NoFormat)
    return createStringError(std::errc::invalid_argument,
                             "trying to match value with invalid format");
  switch (Value) {
  case Kind::Unsigned:
    if (Precision)
      return ("-?([1-9][0-9]*)?[0-9]{" + Twine(Precision) + "}").str();
    return std::string("[0-9]+");
  case Kind::Signed:
     ...
  default:
    llvm_unreachable("....");
  }
}

772

Use trim?

FormatExpr.trim(SpaceChars)

llvm/unittests/Support/FileCheckTest.cpp

165

This will fail if NumStr is empty. Is it OK (I guess so), though perhaps a bit cleaner would be to use StringRef::startswith.

171

PaddedStr = "-";

[thopre]

Address more review comments

[thopre]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

78

I'm not a big fan of repeating the formatting logic for the Precision case so I've kept that bit as is. What do you think of the result?

[grimar]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

78

I see 2 possible improvements:

1. When you have a dedicated RegexPrefix variable, you postpone the return and have to add breaks everywhere. If you just do not want to repeat the formatting logic, I'd suggest to add a little helper. E.g:

auto CreatePrecisionRegex = [](StringRef S) -> std::string {
  return (S + Twine(Precision) + "}").str();
};

switch (Value) {
case Kind::Unsigned:
  if (Precision)
    return CreatePrecisionRegex("-?([1-9][0-9]*)?[0-9]{");
  return std::string("[0-9]+");
default:
  llvm_unreachable("ddd");
}

The main benefit is that you can return early and avoid having a one more variable.

2. Perhaps it doesn't make much sence to use createStringError for the default case? It is unreachable now and can't be tested either (I believe).

So I'd either remove the if (Value == Kind::NoFormat) block and handle the error in the default, like you initially did,
or keep it and switch to using llvm_unreachable in default.

[grimar]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

78

Oh, and for 1) there is no need to use -> std::string:

auto CreatePrecisionRegex = [](StringRef S) {
  return (S + Twine(Precision) + "}").str();
};

[thopre]

Add review comments

[thopre]

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

78

Ah yes, I started doing it your way and changed in the middle. I'll remove the top if block

[jdenny]

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

732–733

"%<fmtspec> is an optional" -> "%<fmtspec>, is an optional"? That is, you must either have %<fmtspec> and , or neither, right?

"the what" -> "what"

733

"how many leading zeros" -> "how many digits" given that you can directly specify the latter (as a minimum) but not the former?

758

IMM->ADDR

The documentation above says 8 is the minimum, but F0F0 has 4 digits.

761

Isn't : supposed to be ,? That's how the tests seem to work, and FileCheck complains when I try this syntax with :.

769

"variable" -> "variables,"

776

When <expr> is empty (here or in the variable definition syntax), then the precision specifier specifies the minimum number of digits to be matched, right?

When <expr> is non-empty, then the precision specifier combined with the actual value of the expression specifies an exact number of digits to be matched, right? I understand that the precision is a minimum here too, but I think it's a printing/substitution minimum not a matching/capturing minimum.

My point is that this case is a bit hard to follow. It seems to me that the numeric substitution syntax with no <expr> is actually more like a variable definition syntax with no variable (and thus no :): there's no existing value to match against, so there's nothing to "substitute". Instead you're capturing a new value and either saving it as a variable or discarding it. Can we document it that way?

If so, instead of calling the first syntax "The syntax to define a numeric variable", you might call it "The syntax to capture a numeric value". It can optionally define a numeric variable.

[jhenderson]

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

742–743

I think that is much simpler.

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

47

This doesn't compile. I don't think you can use -> in a capture list. You just need to specify this and then use appropriately below.

llvm/test/FileCheck/numeric-expression.txt

147

Same goes elsewhere.

llvm/unittests/Support/FileCheckTest.cpp

142

I think you could simplify this code by starting with std::string ExtendedInput = Input; and then just using ExtendedInput in the checks below.

153–177

It sounds to me like this is really just two completely different functions. I'd recommend splitting.

[thopre]

Address all remaining review comments

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

776

I like the idea of distinguishing between capturing a value and substituting a value. Good call.

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

47

It's what I found out before I submit this diff, I must have forgotten to undo the change. Sorry about that.

[jhenderson]

I think this is basically ready now, barring my example comment.

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

755–759

If this example is meant to demonstrate the precision as well as conversion, it probably makes sense to say something like "but would not match mov r5, 0x00F0F0FEFE" and/or change the example to mov r5, 0x0000F0F0, so that it shows the precision behaviour.

[thopre]

Better demonstrate precision in documentation

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

755–759

Good point.

[jhenderson]

LGTM, but best wait for someone else to confirm too.

[thopre]

In D81667#2227851, @jhenderson wrote:

LGTM, but best wait for someone else to confirm too.

Ping anyone else?

[grimar]

I've debugged this and it LGTM.
Have a few minor suggestions about the code (up to you).

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

48

Perhaps, a bit cleaner would be to add the "{" right here.

92

You can just use the value you have already.

111

You can combine these cases I think:

case Kind::HexUpper:
case Kind::HexLower:
  AbsoluteValueStr = utohexstr(AbsoluteValue, Value == Kind::HexLower);
  break;

llvm/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.rst

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 :program:`FileCheck` also supports numeric substitution blocks that allow
 defining numeric variables and checking for numeric values that satisfy a
 numeric expression constraint based on those variables via a numeric
 substitution. This allows ``CHECK:`` directives to verify a numeric relation
 between two numbers, such as the need for consecutive registers to be used.
 
-The syntax to define a numeric variable is ``[[#%<fmtspec>,<NUMVAR>:]]`` where:
+The syntax to define a numeric variable is
+``[[#%<fmtspec>,<NUMVAR>:]]`` where:
 
-* ``%<fmtspec>`` is an optional scanf-style matching format specifier to
-  indicate what number format to match (e.g. hex number).  Currently accepted
-  format specifiers are ``%u``, ``%d``, ``%x`` and ``%X``.  If absent, the
-  format specifier defaults to ``%u``.
+* ``%<fmtspec>`` is an optional format specifier to indicate the what number
+  format to match and how many leading zeros to expect.
 
 * ``<NUMVAR>`` is the name of the numeric variable to define to the matching
   value.
 
+The syntax of ``<fmtspec>`` is: ``.<precision><conversion specifier>`` where:
+
+* ``.<precision>`` is an optional printf-style precision specifier in which
+ ``<precision>`` indicates the minimum number of digits that the value matched
+ must have, expecting leading zeros to have that amount of digits should the
+ value be too small otherwise.
+
+*  ``<conversion specifier>`` is an optional scanf-style conversion specifier
+  to indicate what number format to match (e.g. hex number).  Currently
+  accepted format specifiers are ``%u``, ``%d``, ``%x`` and ``%X``.  If absent,
+  the format specifier defaults to ``%u``.
+
+
 For example:
 
 .. code-block:: llvm
 
-    ; CHECK: mov r[[#REG:]], 0x[[#%X,IMM:]]
+    ; CHECK: mov r[[#REG:]], 0x[[#%.8X,ADDR:]]
 
 would match ``mov r5, 0xF0F0`` and set ``REG`` to the value ``5`` and ``IMM``
 to the value ``0xF0F0``.
 
 The syntax of a numeric substitution is
 ``[[#%<fmtspec>: <constraint> <expr>]]`` where:
 
-* ``%<fmtspec>`` is the same matching format specifier as for defining numeric
-  variables but acting as a printf-style format to indicate how a numeric
-  expression value should be matched against.  If absent, the format specifier
-  is inferred from the matching format of the numeric variable(s) used by the
-  expression constraint if any, and defaults to ``%u`` if no numeric variable
-  is used.  In case of conflict between matching formats of several numeric
-  variables the format specifier is mandatory.
+* ``<fmtspec>`` is the same format specifier as for defining a variable but
+  in this context indicating how a numeric expression value should be matched
+  against. If absent, both components of the format specifier are inferred from
+  the matching format of the numeric variable(s) used by the expression
+  constraint if any, and defaults to ``%u`` if no numeric variable is used,
+  denoting that the value should be unsigned with no leading zeros. In case of
+  conflict between format specifiers of several numeric variable the conversion
+  specifier becomes mandatory but the precision specifier remains optional.
 
 * ``<constraint>`` is the constraint describing how the value to match must
   relate to the value of the numeric expression. The only currently accepted
   constraint is ``==`` for an exact match and is the default if
   ``<constraint>`` is not provided. No matching constraint must be specified
   when the ``<expr>`` is empty.
 
 * ``<expr>`` is an expression. An expression is in turn recursively defined
   as:
 
   * a numeric operand, or
   * an expression followed by an operator and a numeric operand.
 
   A numeric operand is a previously defined numeric variable, an integer

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheck.cpp

StringRef ExpressionFormat::toString() const {
   case Kind::HexUpper:
     return StringRef("%X");
   case Kind::HexLower:
     return StringRef("%x");
   }
   llvm_unreachable("unknown expression format");
 }
 
-Expected<StringRef> ExpressionFormat::getWildcardRegex() const {
+Expected<std::string> ExpressionFormat::getWildcardRegex() const {
+  if (Value == Kind::NoFormat)
+    return createStringError(std::errc::invalid_argument,
+                             "trying to match value with invalid format");
+  StringRef RegexPrefix;
+
   switch (Value) {
   case Kind::Unsigned:
-    return StringRef("[0-9]+");
+    if (!Precision)
+      return std::string("[0-9]+");
+    RegexPrefix = "([1-9][0-9]*)?[0-9]{";
+    break;
   case Kind::Signed:
-    return StringRef("-?[0-9]+");
+    if (!Precision)
+      return std::string("-?[0-9]+");
+    RegexPrefix = "-?([1-9][0-9]*)?[0-9]{";
+    break;
   case Kind::HexUpper:
-    return StringRef("[0-9A-F]+");
+    if (!Precision)
+      return std::string("[0-9A-F]+");
+    RegexPrefix = "([1-9A-F][0-9A-F]*)?[0-9A-F]{";
+    break;
   case Kind::HexLower:
-    return StringRef("[0-9a-f]+");
+    if (!Precision)
+      return std::string("[0-9a-f]+");
+    RegexPrefix = "([1-9a-f][0-9a-f]*)?[0-9a-f]{";
+    break;
   default:
     return createStringError(std::errc::invalid_argument,
                              "trying to match value with invalid format");
   }
+  return (RegexPrefix + Twine(Precision) + "}").str();
 }
 
 Expected<std::string>
 ExpressionFormat::getMatchingString(ExpressionValue IntegerValue) const {
+  uint64_t AbsoluteValue;
+  StringRef SignPrefix = IntegerValue.isNegative() ? "-" : "";
+
   if (Value == Kind::Signed) {
     Expected<int64_t> SignedValue = IntegerValue.getSignedValue();
     if (!SignedValue)
       return SignedValue.takeError();
-    return itostr(*SignedValue);
-  }
-
+    if (*SignedValue < 0)
+      AbsoluteValue = cantFail(IntegerValue.getAbsolute().getUnsignedValue());
+    else
+      AbsoluteValue = cantFail(IntegerValue.getSignedValue());
+  } else {
     Expected<uint64_t> UnsignedValue = IntegerValue.getUnsignedValue();
     if (!UnsignedValue)
       return UnsignedValue.takeError();
+    AbsoluteValue = *UnsignedValue;
+  }
+
+  std::string AbsoluteValueStr;
   switch (Value) {
   case Kind::Unsigned:
-    return utostr(*UnsignedValue);
+  case Kind::Signed:
+    AbsoluteValueStr = utostr(AbsoluteValue);
+    break;
   case Kind::HexUpper:
-    return utohexstr(*UnsignedValue, /*LowerCase=*/false);
+    AbsoluteValueStr = utohexstr(AbsoluteValue, /*LowerCase=*/false);
+    break;
   case Kind::HexLower:
-    return utohexstr(*UnsignedValue, /*LowerCase=*/true);
+    AbsoluteValueStr = utohexstr(AbsoluteValue, /*LowerCase=*/true);
+    break;
   default:
     return createStringError(std::errc::invalid_argument,
                              "trying to match value with invalid format");
   }
+
+  if (Precision > AbsoluteValueStr.size()) {
+    unsigned LeadingZeros = Precision - AbsoluteValueStr.size();
+    return (Twine(SignPrefix) + std::string(LeadingZeros, '0') +
+            AbsoluteValueStr)
+        .str();
+  }
+
+  return (Twine(SignPrefix) + AbsoluteValueStr).str();
 }
 
 Expected<ExpressionValue>
 ExpressionFormat::valueFromStringRepr(StringRef StrVal,
                                       const SourceMgr &SM) const {
   bool ValueIsSigned = Value == Kind::Signed;
   StringRef OverflowErrorStr = "unable to represent numeric value";
   if (ValueIsSigned) {

 Expected<std::unique_ptr<Expression>> Pattern::parseNumericSubstitutionBlock(
     StringRef Expr, Optional<NumericVariable *> &DefinedNumericVariable,
     bool IsLegacyLineExpr, Optional<size_t> LineNumber,
     FileCheckPatternContext *Context, const SourceMgr &SM) {
   std::unique_ptr<ExpressionAST> ExpressionASTPointer = nullptr;
   StringRef DefExpr = StringRef();
   DefinedNumericVariable = None;
   ExpressionFormat ExplicitFormat = ExpressionFormat();
+  unsigned Precision = 0;
 
   // Parse format specifier (NOTE: ',' is also an argument seperator).
   size_t FormatSpecEnd = Expr.find(',');
   size_t FunctionStart = Expr.find('(');
   if (FormatSpecEnd != StringRef::npos && FormatSpecEnd < FunctionStart) {
-    Expr = Expr.ltrim(SpaceChars);
-    if (!Expr.consume_front("%"))
+    StringRef FormatExpr = Expr.take_front(FormatSpecEnd);
+    Expr = Expr.drop_front(FormatSpecEnd + 1);
+    FormatExpr = FormatExpr.trim(SpaceChars);
+    if (!FormatExpr.consume_front("%"))
       return ErrorDiagnostic::get(
-          SM, Expr, "invalid matching format specification in expression");
+          SM, FormatExpr,
+          "invalid matching format specification in expression");
+
+    // Parse precision.
+    if (FormatExpr.consume_front(".")) {
+      if (FormatExpr.consumeInteger(10, Precision))
+        return ErrorDiagnostic::get(SM, FormatExpr,
+                                    "invalid precision in format specifier");
+    }
 
+    if (!FormatExpr.empty()) {
       // Check for unknown matching format specifier and set matching format in
       // class instance representing this expression.
-    SMLoc fmtloc = SMLoc::getFromPointer(Expr.data());
-    switch (popFront(Expr)) {
+      SMLoc FmtLoc = SMLoc::getFromPointer(FormatExpr.data());
+      switch (popFront(FormatExpr)) {
       case 'u':
-      ExplicitFormat = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned);
+        ExplicitFormat =
+            ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, Precision);
         break;
       case 'd':
-      ExplicitFormat = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed);
+        ExplicitFormat =
+            ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed, Precision);
         break;
       case 'x':
-      ExplicitFormat = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower);
+        ExplicitFormat =
+            ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower, Precision);
         break;
       case 'X':
-      ExplicitFormat = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper);
+        ExplicitFormat =
+            ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper, Precision);
         break;
       default:
-      return ErrorDiagnostic::get(SM, fmtloc,
+        return ErrorDiagnostic::get(SM, FmtLoc,
                                     "invalid format specifier in expression");
       }
+    }
 
-    Expr = Expr.ltrim(SpaceChars);
-    if (!Expr.consume_front(","))
+    FormatExpr = FormatExpr.ltrim(SpaceChars);
+    if (!FormatExpr.empty())
       return ErrorDiagnostic::get(
-          SM, Expr, "invalid matching format specification in expression");
+          SM, FormatExpr,
+          "invalid matching format specification in expression");
   }
 
   // Save variable definition expression if any.
   size_t DefEnd = Expr.find(':');
   if (DefEnd != StringRef::npos) {
     DefExpr = Expr.substr(0, DefEnd);
     Expr = Expr.substr(DefEnd + 1);
   }
Expected<std::unique_ptr<Expression>> Pattern::parseNumericSubstitutionBlock(
   else if (ExpressionASTPointer) {
     Expected<ExpressionFormat> ImplicitFormat =
         ExpressionASTPointer->getImplicitFormat(SM);
     if (!ImplicitFormat)
       return ImplicitFormat.takeError();
     Format = *ImplicitFormat;
   }
   if (!Format)
-    Format = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned);
+    Format = ExpressionFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, Precision);
 
   std::unique_ptr<Expression> ExpressionPointer =
       std::make_unique<Expression>(std::move(ExpressionASTPointer), Format);
 
   // Parse the numeric variable definition.
   if (DefEnd != StringRef::npos) {
     DefExpr = DefExpr.ltrim(SpaceChars);
     Expected<NumericVariable *> ParseResult = parseNumericVariableDefinition(
if (PatternStr.startswith("[[")) {
 
       bool IsDefinition = false;
       bool SubstNeeded = false;
       // Whether the substitution block is a legacy use of @LINE with string
       // substitution block syntax.
       bool IsLegacyLineExpr = false;
       StringRef DefName;
       StringRef SubstStr;
-      StringRef MatchRegexp;
+      std::string MatchRegexp;
       size_t SubstInsertIdx = RegExStr.size();
 
       // Parse string variable or legacy @LINE expression.
       if (!IsNumBlock) {
         size_t VarEndIdx = MatchStr.find(":");
         size_t SpacePos = MatchStr.substr(0, VarEndIdx).find_first_of(" \t");
         if (SpacePos != StringRef::npos) {
           SM.PrintMessage(SMLoc::getFromPointer(MatchStr.data() + SpacePos),
if (PatternStr.startswith("[[")) {
           if (Context->GlobalNumericVariableTable.find(Name) !=
               Context->GlobalNumericVariableTable.end()) {
             SM.PrintMessage(
                 SMLoc::getFromPointer(Name.data()), SourceMgr::DK_Error,
                 "numeric variable with name '" + Name + "' already exists");
             return true;
           }
           DefName = Name;
-          MatchRegexp = MatchStr;
+          MatchRegexp = MatchStr.str();
         } else {
           if (IsPseudo) {
             MatchStr = OrigMatchStr;
             IsLegacyLineExpr = IsNumBlock = true;
           } else
             SubstStr = Name;
         }
       }

llvm/lib/Support/FileCheckImpl.h

enum class Kind {
     /// Value should be printed as an uppercase hex number.
     HexUpper,
     /// Value should be printed as a lowercase hex number.
     HexLower
   };
 
 private:
   Kind Value;
+  unsigned Precision = 0;
 
 public:
   /// Evaluates a format to true if it can be used in a match.
   explicit operator bool() const { return Value != Kind::NoFormat; }
 
   /// Define format equality: formats are equal if neither is NoFormat and
-  /// their kinds are the same.
+  /// their kinds and precision are the same.
   bool operator==(const ExpressionFormat &Other) const {
-    return Value != Kind::NoFormat && Value == Other.Value;
+    return Value != Kind::NoFormat && Value == Other.Value &&
+           Precision == Other.Precision;
   }
 
   bool operator!=(const ExpressionFormat &Other) const {
     return !(*this == Other);
   }
 
   bool operator==(Kind OtherValue) const { return Value == OtherValue; }
 
   bool operator!=(Kind OtherValue) const { return !(*this == OtherValue); }
 
   /// \returns the format specifier corresponding to this format as a string.
   StringRef toString() const;
 
   ExpressionFormat() : Value(Kind::NoFormat){};
-  explicit ExpressionFormat(Kind Value) : Value(Value){};
-
-  /// \returns a wildcard regular expression StringRef that matches any value
-  /// in the format represented by this instance, or an error if the format is
-  /// NoFormat.
-  Expected<StringRef> getWildcardRegex() const;
+  explicit ExpressionFormat(Kind Value) : Value(Value), Precision(0){};
+  explicit ExpressionFormat(Kind Value, unsigned Precision)
+      : Value(Value), Precision(Precision){};
+
+  /// \returns a wildcard regular expression string that matches any value in
+  /// the format represented by this instance and no other value, or an error
+  /// if the format is NoFormat.
+  Expected<std::string> getWildcardRegex() const;
 
   /// \returns the string representation of \p Value in the format represented
   /// by this instance, or an error if conversion to this format failed or the
   /// format is NoFormat.
   Expected<std::string> getMatchingString(ExpressionValue Value) const;
 
   /// \returns the value corresponding to string representation \p StrVal
   /// according to the matching format represented by this instance or an error

llvm/test/FileCheck/numeric-expression.txt

 INVALID-FMT-SPEC2-NEXT: INVVAR2=[[#%hhd,INVVAR2:]]
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG1: numeric-expression.txt:[[#@LINE-2]]:37: error: invalid format specifier in expression
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG1-NEXT: {{I}}NVALID-FMT-SPEC1-NEXT: INVVAR1={{\[\[#%c,INVVAR1:\]\]}}
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG1-NEXT:    {{^}}                                    ^{{$}}
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG2: numeric-expression.txt:[[#@LINE-4]]:37: error: invalid format specifier in expression
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG2-NEXT: {{I}}NVALID-FMT-SPEC2-NEXT: INVVAR2={{\[\[#%hhd,INVVAR2:\]\]}}
 INVALID-FMT-SPEC-MSG2-NEXT:    {{^}}                                    ^{{$}}
 
+; Numeric variable definition with precision specifier.
+DEF PREC FMT  // CHECK-LABEL: DEF PREC FMT
+00000022    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8,PADDED_UNSI:]]
[phone]   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8,PADDED_UNSI2:]]
+00000018    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8u,PADDED_UNSI3:]]
[phone]   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8u,PADDED_UNSI4:]]
+0000000f    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8x,PADDED_LHEX:]]
+fffffffff   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8x,PADDED_LHEX2:]]
+0000000E    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8X,PADDED_UHEX:]]
+EEEEEEEEE   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8X,PADDED_UHEX2:]]
+-00000055   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8d,PADDED_SIGN:]]
+-555555555  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8d,PADDED_SIGN2:]]
+
+; Numeric variable definition with precision specifier with value not padded
+; enough.
+RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix INVALID-PADDING-DEF --input-file %s %s
+
+FAIL DEF PREC FMT  // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-LABEL: FAIL DEF PREC FMT
+INVALID_PADDED_UNSI: 0000022   // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-NOT: {{^}}INVALID_PADDED_UNSI: [[#%.8,INVALID_PADDED_UNSI:]]
+INVALID_PADDED_UNSI2: 0000018  // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-NOT: {{^}}INVALID_PADDED_UNSI2: [[#%.8u,INVALID_PADDED_UNSI2:]]
+INVALID_PADDED_LHEX: 000000f   // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-NOT: {{^}}INVALID_PADDED_LHEX: [[#%.8x,INVALID_PADDED_LHEX:]]
+INVALID_PADDED_UHEX: 000000E   // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-NOT: {{^}}INVALID_PADDED_UHEX: [[#%.8X,INVALID_PADDED_UHEX:]]
+INVALID_PADDED_SIGN: -0000055  // INVALID-PADDING-DEF-NOT: {{^}}INVALID_PADDED_SIGN: [[#%.8d,INVALID_PADDED_SIGN:]]
+
 ; Numeric expressions in explicit matching format and default matching rule using
 ; variables defined on other lines without spaces.
 USE EXPL FMT IMPL MATCH  // CHECK-LABEL: USE EXPL FMT IMPL MATCH
 11  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%u,UNSI]]
 12  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%u,UNSI+1]]
 10  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%u,UNSI-1]]
 15  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%u,add(UNSI,4)]]
 11  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%u,max(UNSI,7)]]

 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add(UNSI,2)]]
 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add(UNSI, 2)]]
 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add( UNSI, 2)]]
 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add( UNSI,2)]]
 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add(UNSI,2) ]]
 13  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , add (UNSI,2)]]
 104 // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[# %u , UNSI + sub( add (100 , UNSI+ 1 ), 20) +1 ]]
 
+; Numeric expressions in explicit matching format with precision and default
+; matching rule using variables defined on other lines without spaces.
+USE EXPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH  // CHECK-LABEL: USE EXPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH
+11         // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.1u,UNSI]]
+00000011   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8u,UNSI]]
+1c         // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.1x,LHEX+16]]
+0000000c   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8x,LHEX]]
+1D         // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.1X,UHEX+16]]
+0000000D   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8X,UHEX]]
+-30        // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.1d,SIGN]]
+-00000030  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#%.8d,SIGN]]
+
+; Numeric expressions in explicit matching format with precision and wrong
+; padding, with default matching rule using variables defined on other lines
+; without spaces.
+RUN: FileCheck --check-prefixes CHECK,INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE --input-file %s %s
+
+FAIL USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC EXPL MATCH  // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-LABEL: FAIL USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH
+INVALID UNSI+1: 0000012     // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID UNSI+1: [[#%.8u,UNSI+1]]
+INVALID UNSI-1: 000000010   // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID UNSI-1: [[#%.8u,UNSI-1]]
+INVALID LHEX+1: 000000d     // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID LHEX+1: [[#%.8x,LHEX+1]]
+INVALID LHEX-1: 00000000b   // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID LHEX-1: [[#%.8x,LHEX-1]]
+INVALID UHEX+1: 000000E     // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID UHEX+1: [[#%.8X,UHEX+1]]
+INVALID UHEX-1: 00000000C   // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID UHEX-1: [[#%.8X,UHEX-1]]
+INVALID SIGN+1: -0000029    // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID SIGN+1: [[#%.8d,SIGN+1]]
+INVALID SIGN-1: -000000031  // INVALID-PADDING-EXPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID SIGN-1: [[#%.8d,SIGN-1]]
+
 ; Numeric expressions in implicit matching format and default matching rule using
 ; variables defined on other lines.
 USE IMPL FMT IMPL MATCH  // CHECK-LABEL: USE IMPL FMT IMPL MATCH
 11  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#UNSI]]
 12  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#UNSI+1]]
 10  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#UNSI-1]]
 99  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#max(UNSI,99)]]
 7   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#min(UNSI,7)]]

 1B  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#UHEX+0xe]]
 1B  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#UHEX+0xE]]
 FF  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#max(UHEX,255)]]
 A   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#min(UHEX,10)]]
 -30 // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#SIGN]]
 -29 // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#SIGN+1]]
 -31 // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#SIGN-1]]
 
+; Numeric expressions in implicit matching format with precision and default
+; matching rule using variables defined on other lines.
+USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH  // CHECK-LABEL: USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH
+00000023    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UNSI+1]]
[phone]   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UNSI2+1]]
+00000019    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UNSI3+1]]
[phone]   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UNSI4+1]]
+00000010    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_LHEX+1]]
[phone]  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_LHEX2+1]]
+0000000F    // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UHEX+1]]
+EEEEEEEEF   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_UHEX2+1]]
+-00000054   // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_SIGN+1]]
+-555555554  // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[#PADDED_SIGN2+1]]
+
+; Numeric expression in implicit matching format with precision and wrong
+; amount of padding, with default matching rule using variables defined on
+; other lines.
+RUN: FileCheck --check-prefixes CHECK,INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE --input-file %s %s
+
+FAIL USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH  // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-LABEL: FAIL USE IMPL FMT WITH PREC IMPL MATCH
+INVALID PADDED_UNSI+1: 0000023     // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UNSI+1: [[#PADDED_UNSI+1]]
+INVALID PADDED_UNSI-1: 000000021   // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UNSI-1: [[#PADDED_UNSI-1]]
+INVALID PADDED_UNSI3+1: 0000019    // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UNSI3+1: [[#PADDED_UNSI3+1]]
+INVALID PADDED_UNSI3-1: 000000017  // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UNSI3-1: [[#PADDED_UNSI3-1]]
+INVALID PADDED_LHEX+1: 0000010     // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_LHEX+1: [[#PADDED_LHEX+1]]
+INVALID PADDED_LHEX-1: 00000000e   // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_LHEX-1: [[#PADDED_LHEX-1]]
+INVALID PADDED_UHEX+1: 000000F     // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UHEX+1: [[#PADDED_UHEX+1]]
+INVALID PADDED_UHEX-1: 00000000D   // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_UHEX-1: [[#PADDED_UHEX-1]]
+INVALID PADDED_SIGN+1: -0000054    // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_SIGN+1: [[#PADDED_SIGN+1]]
+INVALID PADDED_SIGN-1: -000000056  // INVALID-PADDING-IMPL-USE-NOT: {{^}}INVALID PADDED_SIGN-1: [[#PADDED_SIGN-1]]
+
 ; Numeric expressions using variables defined on other lines and an immediate
 ; interpreted as an unsigned value.
 ; Note: 9223372036854775819 = 0x8000000000000000 + 11
 USE IMPL FMT IMPL MATCH UNSIGNED IMM
 9223372036854775819
 CHECK-LABEL: USE IMPL FMT IMPL MATCH UNSIGNED IMM
 CHECK-NEXT: [[#UNSI+0x8000000000000000]]
 

llvm/unittests/Support/FileCheckTest.cpp

 constexpr uint64_t MaxUint64 = std::numeric_limits<uint64_t>::max();
 constexpr int64_t MaxInt64 = std::numeric_limits<int64_t>::max();
 constexpr int64_t MinInt64 = std::numeric_limits<int64_t>::min();
 constexpr uint64_t AbsoluteMinInt64 =
     static_cast<uint64_t>(-(MinInt64 + 1)) + 1;
 constexpr uint64_t AbsoluteMaxInt64 = static_cast<uint64_t>(MaxInt64);
 
 struct ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture
-    : public ::testing::TestWithParam<ExpressionFormat::Kind> {
+    : public ::testing::TestWithParam<
+          std::pair<ExpressionFormat::Kind, unsigned>> {
+  unsigned Precision;
   bool Signed;
   bool AllowHex;
   bool AllowUpperHex;
   ExpressionFormat Format;
   Regex WildcardRegex;
 
   StringRef TenStr;
   StringRef FifteenStr;
   std::string MaxUint64Str;
   std::string MaxInt64Str;
   std::string MinInt64Str;
   StringRef FirstInvalidCharDigits;
   StringRef AcceptedHexOnlyDigits;
   StringRef RefusedHexOnlyDigits;
 
   SourceMgr SM;
 
   void SetUp() override {
-    ExpressionFormat::Kind Kind = GetParam();
+    ExpressionFormat::Kind Kind;
+    std::tie(Kind, Precision) = GetParam();
     AllowHex = Kind == ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower ||
                Kind == ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper;
     AllowUpperHex = Kind == ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper;
     Signed = Kind == ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed;
-    Format = ExpressionFormat(Kind);
+    Format = ExpressionFormat(Kind, Precision);
 
     if (!AllowHex) {
       MaxUint64Str = std::to_string(MaxUint64);
       MaxInt64Str = std::to_string(MaxInt64);
       MinInt64Str = std::to_string(MinInt64);
       TenStr = "10";
       FifteenStr = "15";
       FirstInvalidCharDigits = "aA";
       AcceptedHexOnlyDigits = RefusedHexOnlyDigits = "N/A";
       return;
     }
 
     MaxUint64Str = AllowUpperHex ? "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF" : "ffffffffffffffff";
     MaxInt64Str = AllowUpperHex ? "7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF" : "7fffffffffffffff";
     TenStr = AllowUpperHex ? "A" : "a";
     FifteenStr = AllowUpperHex ? "F" : "f";
     AcceptedHexOnlyDigits = AllowUpperHex ? "ABCDEF" : "abcdef";
     RefusedHexOnlyDigits = AllowUpperHex ? "abcdef" : "ABCDEF";
     MinInt64Str = "N/A";
     FirstInvalidCharDigits = "gG";
   }
 
-  void checkWildcardRegexMatch(StringRef Input) {
+  void checkWildcardRegexMatch(StringRef Input,
+                               unsigned TrailExtendTo = 0) const {
     SmallVector<StringRef, 4> Matches;
+    std::string ExtendedInput;
+    if (TrailExtendTo > Input.size()) {
+      ExtendedInput.assign(Input.str());
+      ExtendedInput.append(TrailExtendTo - Input.size(), Input[0]);
+      Input = ExtendedInput;
+    }
     ASSERT_TRUE(WildcardRegex.match(Input, &Matches))
         << "Wildcard regex does not match " << Input;
     EXPECT_EQ(Matches[0], Input);
   }
 
-  void checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(StringRef Input) {
+  void checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(StringRef Input,
+                                      bool TestChars = false) const {
+    if (!TestChars) {
       EXPECT_FALSE(WildcardRegex.match(Input));
+      return;
+    }
+
+    for (auto C : Input)
+      EXPECT_FALSE(WildcardRegex.match(StringRef(&C, 1)));
+  }
+
+  std::string padWithLeadingZeros(StringRef NumStr) const {
+    bool Negative = NumStr.startswith("-");
+    if (NumStr.size() - unsigned(Negative) >= Precision)
+      return NumStr.str();
+
+    std::string PaddedStr;
+    if (Negative) {
+      PaddedStr = "-";
+      NumStr = NumStr.drop_front();
+    }
+    PaddedStr.append(Precision - NumStr.size(), '0');
+    PaddedStr.append(NumStr.str());
+    return PaddedStr;
   }
 
   template <class T> void checkMatchingString(T Val, StringRef ExpectedStr) {
     Expected<std::string> MatchingString =
         Format.getMatchingString(ExpressionValue(Val));
     ASSERT_THAT_EXPECTED(MatchingString, Succeeded())
         << "No matching string for " << Val;
     EXPECT_EQ(*MatchingString, ExpectedStr);
   }
void checkValueFromStringReprFailure(StringRef Str) {
     StringRef OverflowErrorStr = "unable to represent numeric value";
     Expected<ExpressionValue> ResultValue = getValueFromStringReprFailure(Str);
     expectDiagnosticError(OverflowErrorStr, ResultValue.takeError());
   }
 };
 
 TEST_P(ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture, FormatGetWildcardRegex) {
   // Wildcard regex is valid.
-  Expected<StringRef> WildcardPattern = Format.getWildcardRegex();
+  Expected<std::string> WildcardPattern = Format.getWildcardRegex();
   ASSERT_THAT_EXPECTED(WildcardPattern, Succeeded());
-  WildcardRegex = Regex((Twine("^") + *WildcardPattern).str());
+  WildcardRegex = Regex((Twine("^") + *WildcardPattern + "$").str());
   ASSERT_TRUE(WildcardRegex.isValid());
 
   // Does not match empty string.
   checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure("");
 
   // Matches all decimal digits and matches several of them.
-  checkWildcardRegexMatch("0123456789");
+  StringRef LongNumber = "12345678901234567890";
+  checkWildcardRegexMatch(LongNumber);
 
   // Matches negative digits.
+  LongNumber = "-12345678901234567890";
   if (Signed)
-    checkWildcardRegexMatch("-42");
+    checkWildcardRegexMatch(LongNumber);
   else
-    checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure("-42");
+    checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(LongNumber);
 
   // Check non digits or digits with wrong casing are not matched.
   if (AllowHex) {
-    checkWildcardRegexMatch(AcceptedHexOnlyDigits);
-    checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(RefusedHexOnlyDigits);
+    checkWildcardRegexMatch(AcceptedHexOnlyDigits, 16);
+    checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(RefusedHexOnlyDigits, /*TestChars=*/true);
   }
-  checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(FirstInvalidCharDigits);
+  checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(FirstInvalidCharDigits, /*TestChars=*/true);
+
+  // Check leading zeros are only accepted if number of digits is less than the
+  // precision.
+  LongNumber = "01234567890123456789";
+  if (Precision) {
+    checkWildcardRegexMatch(LongNumber.take_front(Precision));
+    checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(LongNumber.take_front(Precision - 1));
+    if (Precision < LongNumber.size())
+      checkWildcardRegexMatchFailure(LongNumber.take_front(Precision + 1));
+  } else
+    checkWildcardRegexMatch(LongNumber);
 }
 
 TEST_P(ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture, FormatGetMatchingString) {
-  checkMatchingString(0, "0");
-  checkMatchingString(9, "9");
+  checkMatchingString(0, padWithLeadingZeros("0"));
+  checkMatchingString(9, padWithLeadingZeros("9"));
 
   if (Signed) {
-    checkMatchingString(-5, "-5");
+    checkMatchingString(-5, padWithLeadingZeros("-5"));
     checkMatchingStringFailure(MaxUint64);
-    checkMatchingString(MaxInt64, MaxInt64Str);
-    checkMatchingString(MinInt64, MinInt64Str);
+    checkMatchingString(MaxInt64, padWithLeadingZeros(MaxInt64Str));
+    checkMatchingString(MinInt64, padWithLeadingZeros(MinInt64Str));
   } else {
     checkMatchingStringFailure(-5);
-    checkMatchingString(MaxUint64, MaxUint64Str);
-    checkMatchingString(MaxInt64, MaxInt64Str);
+    checkMatchingString(MaxUint64, padWithLeadingZeros(MaxUint64Str));
+    checkMatchingString(MaxInt64, padWithLeadingZeros(MaxInt64Str));
     checkMatchingStringFailure(MinInt64);
   }
 
-  checkMatchingString(10, TenStr);
-  checkMatchingString(15, FifteenStr);
+  checkMatchingString(10, padWithLeadingZeros(TenStr));
+  checkMatchingString(15, padWithLeadingZeros(FifteenStr));
 }
 
 TEST_P(ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture, FormatValueFromStringRepr) {
   checkValueFromStringRepr("0", 0);
   checkValueFromStringRepr("9", 9);
 
   if (Signed) {
     checkValueFromStringRepr("-5", -5);
TEST_P(ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture, FormatValueFromStringRepr) {
   // StringRef's getAsInteger() which does not allow to restrict casing.
   checkValueFromStringReprFailure("G");
 }
 
 TEST_P(ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture, FormatBoolOperator) {
   EXPECT_TRUE(bool(Format));
 }
 
-INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P(AllowedExplicitExpressionFormat,
-                        ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture,
-                        ::testing::Values(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned,
-                                          ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed,
-                                          ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower,
-                                          ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper), );
+INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P(
+    AllowedExplicitExpressionFormat, ExpressionFormatParameterisedFixture,
+    ::testing::Values(std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, 0),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed, 0),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower, 0),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper, 0),
+
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, 1),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed, 1),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower, 1),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper, 1),
+
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, 16),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed, 16),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexLower, 16),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::HexUpper, 16),
+
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Unsigned, 20),
+                      std::make_pair(ExpressionFormat::Kind::Signed, 20)), );
 
 TEST_F(FileCheckTest, NoFormatProperties) {
   ExpressionFormat NoFormat(ExpressionFormat::Kind::NoFormat);
   expectError<StringError>("trying to match value with invalid format",
                            NoFormat.getWildcardRegex().takeError());
   expectError<StringError>(
       "trying to match value with invalid format",
       NoFormat.getMatchingString(ExpressionValue(18u)).takeError());
TEST_F(FileCheckTest, ParseNumericSubstitutionBlock) {
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("VAR3:  "), Succeeded());
 
   // Acceptable variable definition with format specifier. Use parsePattern for
   // variables whose definition needs to be visible for later checks.
   EXPECT_FALSE(Tester.parsePattern("[[#%u, VAR_UNSIGNED:]]"));
   EXPECT_FALSE(Tester.parsePattern("[[#%x, VAR_LOWER_HEX:]]"));
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%X, VAR_UPPER_HEX:"), Succeeded());
 
+  // Acceptable variable definition with precision specifier.
+  EXPECT_FALSE(Tester.parsePattern("[[#%.8X, PADDED_ADDR:]]"));
+  EXPECT_FALSE(Tester.parsePattern("[[#%.8, PADDED_NUM:]]"));
+
   // Acceptable variable definition from a numeric expression.
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("FOOBAR: FOO+1"), Succeeded());
 
   // Numeric expression. Switch to next line to make above valid definition
   // available in expressions.
   Tester.initNextPattern();
 
   // Invalid variable name.
expectDiagnosticError(
       Tester.parseSubst("@LINE+0xC", /*LegacyLineExpr=*/true).takeError());
 
   // Valid expression with format specifier.
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%u, FOO"), Succeeded());
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%d, FOO"), Succeeded());
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%x, FOO"), Succeeded());
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%X, FOO"), Succeeded());
 
+  // Valid expression with precision specifier.
+  EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%.8u, FOO"), Succeeded());
+  EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("%.8, FOO"), Succeeded());
+
   // Valid legacy @LINE expression.
   EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Tester.parseSubst("@LINE+2", /*IsLegacyNumExpr=*/true),
                        Succeeded());
 
   // Invalid legacy @LINE expression with more than 2 operands.
   expectDiagnosticError(
       "unexpected characters at end of expression '+@LINE'",
       Tester.parseSubst("@LINE+2+@LINE", /*IsLegacyNumExpr=*/true).takeError());