[PATCH] clang-tidy docs

[Alexander Kornienko]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
wrote:

> Ah, forgot one more thing: clang-tidy suggests to add -header-filter='.*'
> in some cases. This needs to be updated as well.
>

Here: clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:192


>
> -- Alex
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Manuel, thanks for the correction. Omitting quotes would be a problem
>> with
>> > `-checks *`, not `-checks=*` (which is used in the docs).
>> >
>> > Aaron, this patch looks almost good then. Note that the description of
>> > command-line arguments is just a dump of `clang-tidy -help`, so you
>> need to
>> > fix the documentation in the code and then paste `clang-tidy -help`
>> output
>> > to the .rst file and indent it appropriately.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing that out, I've corrected in this patch.
>>
>> > Could you also check whether the -config=... examples work on windows?
>>
>> They do work, from my simple tests.
>>
>> ~Aaron
>>
>> > It might also be useful to add a section describing the windows-specific
>> > aspects of clang-tidy usage some time in the future.
>> >
>> > -- Alex
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think that something starts with -check= on the disk is low
>> probability
>> >> enough that we don't lose much by not escaping it for unix users, while
>> >> gaining a lot less confusion on windows.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 5:39 PM Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I think, we need to leave the examples valid for unix-like shells and
>> add
>> >>> a short section describing differences of shells or giving
>> windows-specific
>> >>> usage instructions. Some examples are just impossible to make
>> compatible
>> >>> with all shells (e.g. -checks='*', even though this is not
>> particularly
>> >>> useful).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Aaron Ballman <
>> aaron at aaronballman.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:34 PM Aaron Ballman <
>> aaron at aaronballman.com>
>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com
>> >
>>
>> >>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >> > Seems like we need different instructions for different shells
>> then
>> >>>> >> > :(
>> >>>> >> > The problem is that otherwise the -*... can be subject to shell
>> >>>> >> > expansion if
>> >>>> >> > it happens to match some files.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Ah, I kind of wondered if this was a shell issue. Thank you for
>> the
>> >>>> >> verification!
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Do you think it makes sense to update the option parsing code to
>> >>>> >> strip
>> >>>> >> the single quotes if they are present?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > No, I don't think it's the tool's job to handle idiosyncrasies of
>> the
>> >>>> > various shells.
>> >>>> > For the docs I see two possibilities:
>> >>>> > a) have 2 versions, one for cmd.exe, one for *sh.
>> >>>> > b) the probability that users will actually have file named
>> >>>> > -something, is
>> >>>> > not that high, we use the non-quoted version
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I kind of lean towards (b) with the understanding (which may be
>> >>>> incorrect) that users of the shell are expected to understand when to
>> >>>> quote arguments and when not to. That being said, I don't have a
>> >>>> strong opinion on it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ~Aaron
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Alex, thoughts?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> ~Aaron
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> >
>> >>>> >> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:49 PM Aaron Ballman
>> >>>> >> > <aaron at aaronballman.com>
>> >>>> >> > wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> This patch addresses two issues (I can split the patch if it is
>> >>>> >> >> desired):
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> 1) The docs have some non-ASCII characters in them that aren't
>> >>>> >> >> really
>> >>>> >> >> required.
>> >>>> >> >> 2) The docs suggest setting the checks using single quotes,
>> which
>> >>>> >> >> does
>> >>>> >> >> not work (at least, on Windows).
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> When you specify checks like -checks='-*,misc-some-check', the
>> >>>> >> >> single
>> >>>> >> >> quotes are not stripped by the option parser. When converting
>> the
>> >>>> >> >> flags into globs to pass along to regex, the single quotes
>> remain
>> >>>> >> >> as
>> >>>> >> >> part of the regular expression, and do not match appropriately.
>> >>>> >> >> When
>> >>>> >> >> the single quotes are left off, the globs are correctly
>> generated.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> ~Aaron
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150727/3f3b417b/attachment.html>