[PATCH] D49864: [clang-tidy] The script clang-tidy-diff.py doesn't accept 'pass by' options (--)

[Jano Simas via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

janosimas added a comment.

I was thinking about the usage of `--` and `-extra-arg`, don't they do the same thing?
To be honest, for me, the current behavior of `--` doesn't make much sense. If there is a use case for `-extra-arg-before` and `-extra-arg`, they are much more clearer in intent.
For me, `--` usual behavior would be pass by options for the first next program, `clang-tidy` in this case.

---

Is there a reason to limit how the flags a passed to `clang-tidy`?
Why not pass all options as if using `clang-tidy` and only threat special cases and default values?



================
Comment at: clang-tidy/tool/clang-tidy-diff.py:123-130
   if args.fix:
     command.append('-fix')
   if args.checks != '':
     command.append('-checks=' + quote + args.checks + quote)
   if args.quiet:
     command.append('-quiet')
   if args.build_path is not None:
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> janosimas wrote:
> > janosimas wrote:
> > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > If we make the script leave out the `--` flag, we should stop forwarding these flags and the `extra_arg(_before)?` below. Otherwise it's too confusing (should one place -fix before `--` or after? what about `-warnings-as-errors`?).
> > > > 
> > > > Please also update the usage example at the top.
> > > What about keep the current `--` behavior and add a new flag `-extra-tidy-flags` ? 
> > `-extra-tidy-arg` to maintain consistency.
> What's the benefit of `-extra-tidy-arg` compared to pass-by arguments?
`-extra-tidy-arg` would keep the current `--` behavior and cover other cases of extra flags not supported by this script.
I was worried about how changing the behavior would affect people that already using it.



Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D49864