[cfe-dev] (no subject)

[Alexander Kornienko]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Andrew C. Morrow <andrew.c.morrow at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew, Richard,
>>
>> > I asked this over on cfe-user last week, but got no response there:
>>
>> Sorry, I wasn't even aware of this list before I saw your e-mail.
>> Currently cfe-dev is a better place for clang-tidy questions.
>>
>
> It looks like cfe-user is not widely used. That is maybe unfortunate, in
> my opinion there should be a place to ask user-ish questions without
> cluttering the dev list.
>
>
>
>>
>> Re: your main question. While in general YAML/JSON/... would be a better
>> format to output clang-tidy results for other tools, I see that there are
>> valid use cases for parsing text diagnostic output, as there are many tools
>> doing this with compiler diagnostics. And we certainly need to allow
>> configuration of the diagnostic output. However --extra-arg is just not the
>> right mechanism for this, as it just modifies compilation arguments
>> clang-tidy gets from a compilation database. We can't configure output of
>> clang-tidy using these arguments, as they can be arbitrary and even
>> different for each processed file.
>>
>
> That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the help text for
> -extra-arg could be amended to give some indication of which sort of flags
> are honored, and which are not? It really did look like exactly what I
> wanted.
>
>
>
>>
>> A better way to make diagnostic output configurable is to add top-level
>> clang-tidy flags. Is it the only flag you need or would some other similar
>> flags be useful as well?
>>
>
> Ideally I think the whole set of diagnostics switches described here:
>
>
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#controlling-how-clang-displays-diagnostics
>
> My reasoning is that if you have an existing tool parsing clang
> diagnostics output it may already be using any of these flags to customize,
> and if the goal is to make clang-tidy useable as a drop in replacement for
> 'clang -fsyntax-only' or similar it would need to support the same options
> with the same effects on diagnostic presentation.
>
>
>
>>
>> I can't promise that I can add the support for these quickly, but it
>> definitely seems like a useful thing to have.
>>
>
> Great. I've not looked into the clang-tidy code but if you think this
> would be reasonably straightforward I might just try to implement it.
>

It shouldn't be difficult to implement. Though it may require some non-zero
effort to comply with the project's coding style. If you want to give it a
shot, I'll be happy to review the patch (the preferred way is to send it to
me, CC: cfe-commits@ via Phabricator <http://reviews.llvm.org>, as
described here <http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html>).


-- Alex


>

> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150315/24417768/attachment.html>