[PATCH] clang-tidy docs

[Aaron Ballman]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote:
> 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

That appears to be the only instance of it in the source or the docs.

~Aaron

>
>>
>>
>> -- 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clang-tidy v3.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150727/b62aee6b/attachment.obj>