[cfe-dev] JSONCompilationDB Parser

[Tobias Grosser]

On 12/03/2012 01:24 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es
> <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/03/2012 08:05 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote:
>
>         On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:26 AM, ramneek
>         <onewastedlife at gmail.com <mailto:onewastedlife at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:onewastedlife at gmail.__com
>         <mailto:onewastedlife at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>              Would it be ok if i worked on a patch to move things to a
>         namespace
>              for the first cut while we decide how we can allow plugins.
>              Also we should be ignoring the namespaces that we are not
>         using so
>              it allows applications to add their custom data to while
>         preserving
>              the acceptable file format.
>
>              My proposal is actually simple:
>
>              This is what we have today:
>
>              [
>                 {"directory":"/home/user/llvm/__build",
>         "command":"/usr/bin/clang++ -Irelative -DSOMEDEF='\"With spaces
>         and quotes.\"'  -c -o file.o file.cc",
>         "file":"file.cc"  },
>                 …
>              ]
>
>              We can move it to (cc = compile commands):
>
>              {"cc"  :{"directory":"/home/user/__llvm/build",
>
>         "command":"/usr/bin/clang++ -Irelative -DSOMEDEF='\"With spaces
>         and quotes.\"'  -c -o file.o file.cc",
>         "file":"file.cc"  },
>                 …
>              ]
>
>
>              One thing that we will have to be careful about is that we
>         will have to patch the cmake compilation command generation
>         facility as well..
>
>              I can look into that as well or make the change such that
>         it is backwards compatible?
>
>
>         I'm still torn. While I see the arguments for why being strict
>         might be
>         a problem if we plan to change the format, I don't understand
>         the need
>         for the namespace / being able to have different things in a
>         single file
>         yet.
>
>
>     I also have no opinion about name spaces. However, I think it would be
>     good if we could ensure clang 3.2 just ignores unknown content.
>     Otherwise, the costs of adding new information to that file will be
>     a lot higher.
>
>     Manuel, do you think this change would still be OK for 3.2?
>
>
> Folks, 3.2 is essentially shipped. This should *not* hold up that release.

Agreed. This is really not a release blocker.

On the other hand, as this is a very non-critical component, getting 
this small change in may still be possible, and it may make our life a 
little simpler in the future. To my knowledge, there is another rc3 
scheduled for Wednesday, so that could be the last window to get trivial 
changes in.

Manuel, as you are the tooling stuff expert, I leave the decision to 
you. I did my job of raising the topic. ;-)

All the best
Tobi