[cfe-commits] [patch] installing clang-check as part of clang

[Manuel Klimek]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:23 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While reading the "How To Setup Clang Tooling for LLVM" documentation
>> ( http://clang.llvm.org/docs/HowToSetupToolingForLLVM.html ) I ran
>> into a snag where the document implied that clang-check would be
>> installed alongside clang. This is currently not the case - we don't
>> install clang-check, at least not in the cmake build (&, given the
>> presence of "NO_INSTALL = 1" in the Makefile, I assume we don't in the
>> make build either).
>>
>> Should we? It seems like a natural enough thing to install, though I
>> realize the specifics of which tools will be developed where and how
>> they'll be installed is still in flux, so I figured I'd start a thread
>> to discuss this rather than just committing it.
>>
>> [as a side note: why do we install diagtool (perhaps there's some use
>> for it other than the internal diagnostic flag regression testing?)
>> and c-index-test (by name I would've thought that was just an internal
>> test binary)]
>> <clang_check_install.diff>
>
>
> It depends on whether we think the installation is for end-users of Clang or for developers who want to work on Clang or Clang-based tools. I tend to think that we should favor for former, and only install the base compiler (clang, clang++, support headers and support libraries). If we want to have a "developer mode" that installs everything else, that's fine.

Especially with the vim integration, the use case of clang-check I see
is much more for clang-users (-> compiling their random open source
project with clang) than for clang devs. Of course we're not yet at
the integration level we want to be at for editors; which I can see as
an objection to default-installing it in its current state.

Thoughts?
/Manuel