[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Adds a FixedCompilationDatabase

[Douglas Gregor]

On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 5:17 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Added parsing code and integrated it into clang-check (which I'm now
>>>>> heavily testing in my vim session :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a nice side effect this gives us a beautiful way to write FileCheck
>>>>> integration tests for clang tools.
>>>>> I'd still like to be able to pull something out that encapsulates most
>>>>> of the command line parsing for tools, so it's less code, but I want
>>>>> to leave that for later.
>>>> 
>>>> Patch generally looks good, although this…
>>>> 
>>>> +std::vector<CompileCommand>
>>>> +FixedCompilationDatabase::getCompileCommands(StringRef FilePath) const {
>>>> +  std::vector<CompileCommand> Result(CompileCommands);
>>>> +  Result[0].CommandLine.push_back(FilePath);
>>>> +  return Result;
>>>> +}
>>>> 
>>>> doesn't actually seem right. What if the CompileCommands contains multiple source files, e.g.,
>>>> 
>>>>        clang-check -- a.cpp b.cpp
>>>> 
>>>> shouldn't we filter out the other non-source files, or return an empty compile command if the command line didn't specify the given file name (say, if the CompilationDatabase is asked to return a compile command for c.cpp)?
>>> 
>>> I tried to document that in the chandler-length comments of the
>>> FixedCompilationDatabase, but apparently I failed :)
>> 
>> I just missed it, sorry.
>> 
>>> The idea is that you'll specify the TUs to work on, the same way you
>>> do for other clang tools, before the "--".
>>> Your example would be
>>> clang-check . a.cpp b.cpp -- -c ...
>> 
>> 
>> I can live with that, although I'll note that it's still a little unfortunate that I can't drop in "clang-check" as if it were a compiler and have it do the right thing.
> 
> Yep, I generally agree. The problem is that then we have to be able to
> parse a compile command line, which according to Chandler means to let
> the Driver create a Compiler instance, and then using that to drive
> the tool. I'm not sure how this would turn out architecture wise, and
> I don't expect it to be very important, as, if you want to run the
> tool like a compiler, just use a clang plugin - that's what they're
> really good at :)

Fair point. Carry on ;)

	- Doug