[PATCH] Initial clang-tidy architecture

[Daniel Jasper]

================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyModule.h:29
@@ +28,3 @@
+  virtual ~ClangTidyModule() {}
+  virtual void addChecks(ClangTidyCheckVector *Checks) = 0;
+};
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Daniel Jasper wrote:
> > Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > > I don't think the typedef buys us much here, but I might be alone with my opinion...
> > As you have just asked my to change it above and that change would already have required me to change more than a handful of instances, I think you have proven yourself wrong ;-).
> Well, I don't consider changing 10 lines of code a big issue; when I say I think it doesn't buy us much, I think that it doesn't aid readability :P
Wait until we have 100 such modules ;-)...

================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyModule.h:21
@@ +20,3 @@
+
+typedef std::pair<StringRef, ClangTidyCheck *> NamedCheck;
+typedef SmallVector<NamedCheck, 16> ClangTidyCheckVector;
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Daniel Jasper wrote:
> > Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > > I'd probably use a getName() in ClangTidyCheck instead.
> > The point is that I want this to be a configuration feature of the Module instead of an implementation detail of the check. I think we might arrive at a point where the same Check-class is used with slightly different options in several modules and thereby with different names.
> Wouldn't that mean that it's even more strongly coupled to the Check class? Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it.
I don't understand what you mean by that?

Imagine, e.g. we would have a namespace comment check in both LLVM and Google and only the actually inserted comment would be slightly different. I would then put the NamespaceCommentCheck class into a common directory, make the inserted comment a parameter and let both the LLVMModule and the GoogleModule export it, e.g. as llvm-namespace-comments and google-namespace-comments.

But I also don't feel strongly and think that we can only make more educated decisions once we have a few more checks implemented.


http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D884