[cfe-dev] [RFC] Add include-what-you-use tool to clang-tools-extra

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:36 PM Volodymyr Sapsai <vsapsai at gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently include-what-you-use is considered to be competing with Clang
> tools, existing and potential.


By whom? Why?


> It would be great to resolve this competition issue. One of the ways to
> achieve it is to make IWYU one of Clang tools. I'll be glad to learn about
> other options. So far I don't know any.
>
> Thanks,
> Volodymyr
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 06:27 Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> > Reimplementing the tool using the tooling available in the LLVM project
>>> > would seem more appropriate to an LLVM-project tool. J
>>> >
>>> > I am not really familiar with the original IWYU tool, but one thing I
>>> > remember from James' work is that it would be fairly easy to implement
>>> > different policies.  For example, minimizing the number of #includes,
>>> versus
>>> > always directly including the header that declares everything actually
>>> used
>>> > in the source.  That kind of flexibility is great.
>>>
>>> I think exploring a new IWYU would be interesting and rewarding. It
>>> would be nice if such an initiative could build on the IWYU test suite
>>> in some form, I suspect that the easy cases are easy to get right, and
>>> that some of the complexity in the current IWYU comes from the edge
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> That said, some/much(?) of the IWYU complexity is probably incidental,
>>> and it would be nice to clean that up.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure the most productive way to do that is to start from
>>> scratch, though.
>>
>>
>> I fully agree. My main point is: I don't think putting it into
>> clang-tools-extra in its current form is the right approach. I don't know
>> any better way to incrementally get it into the form it would need to get
>> into clang-tools-extra other than through incremental patches to
>> clang-tools-extra, given that many folks just read the mailing list for
>> patches, and if we try to go around the usual approach (for example by
>> doing reviews in the current location) important feedback / objections
>> might drop in only when the full thing goes in in the end.
>>
>> That said, I perhaps also don't find it super important for iwyu to be in
>> clang-tools-extra - it'd most certainly be nice, and make me happy on a
>> principled basis, but given the current state of the world, I'd rather wait
>> a bit how things play out than try to force it.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm missing something?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> /Manuel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170908/752fbb09/attachment.html>